Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noridasu

[edit]
Noridasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A manga from a non-notable author that has yet to be published, and has absolutely no sources. Article is written by User:Rei Hirashame, also the name of the main character which draws WP:COI concerns as well. Long story short, it's vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search only turns up self-published sources by the author. Unpublished fiction is rarely notable. Delete the article for now, consider restoring it when (& if) publication actually occurs. JulesH 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidence suggests article needs cleanup, but nominator provided no reason for deletion. Almost all other editors agreed this was a topic worth keeping.- Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teletubbies episodes

[edit]
List of Teletubbies episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Come on, people. This article is pretty pointless. It's incomplete, and simply a mess. Not wikipedia quality in any way, shape, or form. Chaz 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor children's TV show. The bloody thing is shown across the world and translated in I don't know how many languages. That's not minor. If you meant minor as referring to the children (children are always minors) I don't see any reason to treat it different than a show for adults. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Teletubbies until it contains enough information about the episodes in question (merge episodes to the list if that is needed to get some substance). - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per precedent. There's an entire wikiproject devoted to television episode lists, and there are episode list articles for shows with only a few episodes. Expand and clean-up, obviously. 23skidoo 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Although it would be perfectly ok as a stand alone article, Would be best as a part of the main article.Dolive21 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent towards having episode lists of notable shows. While it was a silly kids' show, it certainly was successful in a number of countries. The current article is a total mess though, with several obviously fake episodes ("The Death of Po") and wrong names for some of the real ones. I deleted a linked hoax article about a supposedly "adult" episode with sexual content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show is notable enough to warrant a seperate episode list.--TomI edit my userpage too much, 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Okay, after looking into this, I discovered that, not only is this list here completely inaccurate, but it is about 1/20th of the actual list. Tv.com lists a whopping 340 episodes! Most of the titles given here are wrong, and it is clear the article was written in jest. I suggest a complete rewrite, and changing my vote to Keep. Even without descriptions, I think with 300-some episodes, just a list of the episode titles/airdates/etc is enough to warrant a separate article. Wavy G 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I am suggesting keeping and rewriting the list, NOT redlinking 340 potential episode articles.
    Agreed. What rivetting plot concepts could you actually have on the episode articles?? Eps 1 - Lala & Twinky run around a large green field. Eps 2 - Lala & Po run around a large green field. Eps 3 - All three run around a large green field jumping into holes. Eps 4 - The same three wonder where the gay one has gotten to... Etc etc etc... ;) So yes, only rewrite the list... Spawn Man 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I argue for keep and for the page to be blanked? Nothing on this page is verifiable, and I suspect much of it is made up. WP:V is the "threshold for inclusion" in Wikipedia, and nothing here meets that standard. The topic is worthy of a page, though. There are episode guides for far less prominent shows. --Walor 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Change to full keep now that edits have been made. --Walor 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article can be edited, and its contents completely replaced, during the next seven days while it is on AFD. Alternatively the outcome is unlikely to preclude a list of this type, merely this incarnation of it, as several comments above object to the inaccuracy more than the subject matter. That will be up to the closing administrator to clarify, though, if needed. -- nae'blis 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists of episodes seem to be common enough, and are better then actually having 320 teletubby articles. *shutter*. ---J.S (T/C) 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awww, big hug keep - Man I could have really gone to town coming up with ways to say to delete this article, but alas, I must settle for a keep as it was a pretty famous (although absolutely rubbish) show. Spawn Man 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and blank. Incredibly notable television show, should have an episode list on Wiki. Cleanup is needed of course, but being shitty is not a reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fixed up the list some. Threw it into a table and got some better data from eofftv.com and tv.com. I'll leave the date wiki-linking to someone with AWB running. ---J.S (T/C) 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg... I feel wikidirty for working on a teletubbies article. *shutter* ---J.S (T/C) 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it *shudder*? Unless there's a new emotion I don't know about lol... ;) Spawn Man 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work, J.S. I think that's pretty much all that can be done at this point, other than maybe breaking it down by season. And somebody track down the joker who put up the original 16-episode list and give him a smart pounding for duping an entire group of adults into wasting this much time discussing it on Afd. Wavy G 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, mechanically engineer a television into his chest & make him watch days of our lives performed by teletubbies. Will certainly drive him & anyone near him in a 1 kiliometre radius completely mad... ;) Spawn Man 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it was this guy, well known for adding false information, focusing primarily on child-oriented subjects (kinda creepy). Wavy G 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD was suggested before the current content of the article--when it was nothing but a list of 16 or 17 episodes, most of which were worded wrong, or just outright joke entries. The article has since been fixed. Just FYI Wavy G 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Avenue

[edit]
Stewart Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This street (allegedly a thoroughfare in Bethpage, New York does not appear notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, but merging to Maine United States Senate election, 2006 does not appear to be ruled out, either. Sandstein 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Slavick

[edit]
Bill Slavick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Failed candidate for US Senate in Maine who got 5% of the vote. A previous version of the page also discussed his academic career, but he does not meet WP:PROF, as he is not a noted expert in his field and hasn't published a well-known work. He was a Fulbright lecturer, but the Fulbright Program funds dozens, if not hundreds of such lecturers each year. JChap2007 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5% for third party candidates is not unusual (or notable, for that matter) in races where there is not a competitive major party challenger. I'm all for a generous definition of notability while an election is under way: People need a real-time reference. But after it's over, if the subject of an article's only claim to notability is that they lost an election, and not even a close one -- how does that article serve the readers of Wikipedia? Who is possibly going to look it up, and to what end? 5% of Maine voters is more than enough to overwhelm "rough consensus" here, but not enough to warrant what would be, in effect, a memorial. If this article is going to be kept, then we need clearer guidelines that will be applied across the board to protect the articles of similarly non-notable candidates that get deleted every day in the absence of a Wiki-literate fan club. Otherwise, a keep decision would enforce an arbitrary bias. -- Shunpiker 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still think this article is more of a memorial than a useful reference, but I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote based on the fact that the bar seems to be lower than I imagined: I found more than a few unchallenged articles for candidates who polled significantly worse in the 2006 Senate elections, and who also appear to be notable only for their lapsed candidacies: Ralph Ferrucci (0.5% CT), Robert Fitzgerald (3% MN), Michael Cavlan (0.5% MN), Ben Powers (0.3% MN), Stan Jones (3% MT), N. Leonard Smith (0.3% NJ), Bill Van Auken (0.2% NY), Emory "Bo" Heyward (0.2% TN), Ed Choate (0.6% TN), Cris Ericson (0.6% VT), Bruce Guthrie (1.4% WA). My main concern regarding the application of AfD to political matters is that the criteria be applied fairly. I don't think it is being applied fairly, but it's probably better to err on the side of inclusion since that bias is at least more obvious, and more easily corrected. -- Shunpiker 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Dennisthe2 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, what's more than a candidate in the US Senate election. He didn't make enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actually, 5% in a major election is considered a major accomplishment for a 3rd party candidate in the US and is frequently considered past the threshold of "factor". In California it was the case with Peter Camejo in the 2002 Gubernatorial election where he got just over 5% of the vote (that's why he was allowed to participate in the 2003 recall election debates). --Oakshade 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, this discssion is about this person in particular. Arbitrary thresholds are just that: arbitrary. If this person was a factor in the election, it will have been reported and documented, and you will be able to point to non-trivial published works that discuss this person. If this person was not a factor, then the percentage is irrelevant. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs the original contributor who fought to have him stay on here for the election, and then shrunk his bio down to mark his relevance to the national election, I would say, he has a place. A small place, but as a third party candidate running against the most popular incumbent in the senate, and still getting 5%, I would say it is worthy of note...small note yes, but noteworthy.--Mitchsensei 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a mis-use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for candidates to have candidate summaries published. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why you advocate keeping a stub that you think should not be expanded and that, looking at the article history, you appear to have shrunk from a longer article. If we do not have a proper article on him (and by your own admission we shouldn't have one) it is better for our readers to discuss him in a larger context. JChap2007 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is a place people go to seek information. I can think of a lot more useless information on here than information on a third party candidate for one of the most relevant political institutions on the planet. Now, having said that, I don't think there will be much extended discussion about Mr. Slavick. In fact, this deletion discussion is perhaps the biggest post-mortem his candidacy will get.--Mitchsensei 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle we should merge (per proposed guideline) to U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006, but that doesn't exist. I would not object to that outcome. As for the sentiment toward deletion, I'm ambivalent about the 5% threshold being cited -- to me, an inclusionist, it feels just enough. Nolo contendere, then. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an arbitrary figure and should not be a criterion. As stated above, if this person was a "factor" in the election, that will have been documented, whatever the percentage of the vote. The documentation of this person is the argument. Vote percentages are not. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mitchsensei.--HamedogTalk|@ 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5% seemed enough to be notable, even before i found out he was not one of the main teo parties. Definately notable. I can definatly see someone wanting to look him up. Dolive21 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely? Really? Whatever for? -- Shunpiker 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading

[edit]
Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very few Google results, none of which are indicative of a book which is notable on its own. Should maybe be merged into the currently nonexistant article for the author. Rampart 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is a little thin and sales-like but the book is listed on some sale sites and seems notable. [2]. meshach 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the book is notable and with reliable sources such as Amazon, this article just needs an expansion as well as a cleanup. Terence Ong 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to stub as per nom There is no substantive claim made in the article that this book is encyclopedically notable. There are numerous authors and books - most of them academic - on the history of the English language, the effect of new media on language, styles of internet communication etc etc etc out here. Not every one of these is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a book catalogue and having a listing on online bookstores is certainly not evidence of notability. What needs to be shown is that this book is regarded as "smarter than the average bear", so to speak. Amazon.com sales ranking is currently above 1.02 million. This does not rule out that the book is influential, but the Amazon listing is not a persuasive argument in favour of such an assertion. No prejudice against merging some of this content to a stub for Naomi S. Baron, although whether she passes WP:PROF is a matter for later debate (Baron does not have the profile of say, the British linguist David Crystal). Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Merge to what stub? Make up your mind. Delete and merge are mutually exclusive. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "/" means "or". Also see nom. Stub can be created Bwithh 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Simeon Jackson, delete Eyre and Wilson. Majorly 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Eyre

[edit]
Nicky Eyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played a first-team game for a professional team. For this reason I also nominate his team mates Glenn Wilson (footballer) and Simeon Jackson HornetMike 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki, since that's already been done. --Coredesat 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for pike

[edit]
Fishing for pike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Article reads like something which should be on an uneditable enthusist's website or a fishing wiki. Offers no information as to the subject's notability and does not seem to follow the manual of style. Seems to be a perpetual target for spamming. This is simply not the kind of article for a free encyclopedia. If a more appropriate sister project would be a better location, Transwiki. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, unencyclopedic fishing lesson.--John Lake 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect/merge. Majorly 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Markle

[edit]
Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable model who appears on a gameshow with a non-speaking role. This model has a few other credits on IMDB, but none appear to be substantial (that is, plot-involved) roles, mostly appearing as an irregular guest on series shows. Mikeblas 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete per Dolive21. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kesse Wallace

[edit]
Kesse Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. The contestant was eliminated fairly early, and didn't go on to do any notale work -- she's now just another struggling fashion model. Mikeblas 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mindmatrix 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beirut Spring

[edit]
Beirut Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is on a blog with no notability and no verification. There is no press that has featured Beirut Spring, thus it violates WP:WEB. Diez2 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansonite

[edit]

Its been three years since this article was started, and after all that time we've yet to receive any reliable sources for this article. It also reads much like an over-glorified dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. Of the two external links provided, one is for Encyclopedia Gothica (not reliable) and the latter is a BBC article which does nothing to support the existence of this neologism. My suggestion would be to delete as unsourced original research. RFerreira 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiability is a criterion for deletion. Simple lack of sources is not currently a guideline for deletion. If I'm wrong, then cite the guideline that explicity says this and I'll change my vote. If you want to argue that Mansonite is unverifiable, you should do so, and lay off the spurious argument that lack of sources is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, which is not really relevant here. My reasons for deletion are clear and I'll stick with them, thanks. RFerreira 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, but contrary to guidelines. dryguy 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the last time, speedy deletion has nothing to do with the Articles for Deletion process. Stop citing policy that has no bearing on this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced the talk page, not the proposal (it isn't policy). If you read through the comments, you will see that there is not a consensus that lack of citations is a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. There is no relevant policy to cite, simply because there isn't an existing policy that states that lack of references is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The page is up for AfD as "unsourced original research", not for lack of citations. See the criteria for deletion for more details. Lack of citations is grounds for putting a banner that says there are no citations for the work. Your policy cite still has no bearing on the discussion, and you've been asked by Danny above to please stop doing this. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ignoring my point. 10,200 Ghits is likely to be evidence of the existence of external sources, which might well show that the subject of the article isn't OR. There may be parts of the article that are OR, which is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. dryguy 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Now in some articles it might be that the sources exist but haven't been added - given that it's been three years, this seems unlikely here. If someone finds a reliable source for mansonite in future, they can always add a new article based on that. Mdwh 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What policy change is that? If you mean WP:ATT, that still requires "reliable, published source". If anything, I'd say that policy strengthens existing policy, and would be all the more reason to delete this article. Mdwh 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if WP:ATT becomes policy, the "Encyclopedia Gothica" would seem to be what it calls a "questionable source". The BBC link doesn't contain the word "mansonite" at all. Demiurge 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, Encyclopedia Gothica may qualify as a "questionable source" (although I'm uncertain; it seems to have an editor independent of the content creators and to require a minimum standard from its articles, but as to what fact-checking processes they employ it is hard to tell), but I feel this particular source would still be usable on this article despite these reservations, due to the exception for subjects "where professional sources offer shallow coverage". I don't think there are many professional quality sources on attitudes between different subsections of the goth subculture. JulesH 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Encyclopedia Gothica is probably about as questionable as the Jargon File - even if the JF has been around longer. It kind of becomes one of those things that are questionable only because it's something that documents particulars of a community. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not having sources is not a reason for deletion. Reliable sources not existing is. The first needs cleanup, the second is a violation of WP:V. - Mgm|(talk) 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. dryguy 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian National Vanguard

[edit]
Romanian National Vanguard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire article is obvious fascist propaganda copied from the official site (very likely, buy the very same person who created that site). There is no notability to speak of: the name will show on google searches only once outside of the wiki article (twice, if you count a post on a "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" thread...). The Romanian-language version of the name gives... no links whatsoever. It looks like they are only gathering followers in this manner, and wikipedia should not be helping them achieve the notability needed for them to have a wiki article... I mean, if you ask for someone to balance the text, but you would have to find someone who has heard of them or cares about them enough to criticize them. I could just as well create my own couple of "Vanguards", and start wiki articles on them. Dahn 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berg-Munch

[edit]
Berg-Munch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a "prominent" Scottish/English/Irish family. Hmm...A little vague? No notability and no verification. Diez2 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Bryan

[edit]
Betsy Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about Betsy, who is best known for leading an excavation crew somewhere in Africa. It would probably be better if she was best known about her Johns Hopkins employment, but there is no verification on that. Diez2 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mindmatrix 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It Comic

[edit]
Stick It Comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recreation of previously deleted Stick It! (comic). Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discuss possible merging on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashgrovian

[edit]

Dictionary article (and the etymology) that should belong in WikiDictionary. Diez2 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete (G1). Renesis (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Books

[edit]
Better Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:LOCAL. This is borderline nonsense about a bookstore somewhere in London. Diez2 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xwrits

[edit]
Xwrits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted on A7, undeleted per request. Concern is WP:SOFTWARE. - crz crztalk 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon number

[edit]

The concept is total original research, only discussed in jest by unreliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. Deco 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR broken here. Just H 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:N, those two criteria are the same. A topic is notable by the definition there "if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is met here.--Trystan 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, OR. Jonathunder 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Day

[edit]
Rain Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trivial, unsourced, unlinked Robotsintrouble 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISKCON devotees by status

[edit]
List of ISKCON devotees by status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable list of members. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sfacets 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most list members appear notable, which leads me to believe that the list itself is. -Drdisque 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a catagory for ISKCON, having a list as well, though adds slightly more detail with the person's status, isn't required. Also, ISKCON has over 100,000 members - Being a list of "ISKCON devotees by status" it certainly could get very long. Chopper Dave 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge notable members to ISKCON Sfacets 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G10. Xoloz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi

[edit]
Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable frat house Bm gub 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sheehan

[edit]
Sam Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-Notable youth amateur driver -Drdisque 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, 5th place in a small amateur series is not notably successful. -Drdisque 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hethersett Middle School

[edit]
Hethersett Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician)

[edit]
Mark Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful candidate for State House in PA. Non-notable person otherwise. Holds no other office. I actually supported the guy and sent him a few bucks. But the reality is that he won't be running for any notable office until 2008 so maybe in two years, he can be brought back. Montco 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Island Elementary School

[edit]
Cedar Island Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted ViridaeTalk 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.F.F Los Unicos

[edit]
F.F.F Los Unicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No clear assertion of notability; no sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Doesn't seem to meet the sports inclusion standards. Crystallina 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Roese

[edit]
Neal Roese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 04:08Z

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

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis National School

[edit]
Ennis National School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Significant enough to warrant a page? Sad mouse 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's located in Europe, where 100 years isn't that much, historically speaking. Certainly not enough to call it "obvious" without any supporting sources. And while there are no formal guidelines in place, it remains true that the article does not assert notability. Regardless of what may or may not constitute notability, it's general consensus that a claim of such is required. Shimeru 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some (like me) would find stating that it opened in 1897 is stating notability. Some would even find simply stating that it is a school is stating notability. Until a guideline/policy exists, we're all talking in the dark here anyway. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is WP:NN. This school has not been shown "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Shimeru 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight a bit, it should be pointed out that WP:N is a "disputed" page that is directly part of an ongoing RFAR and arbcom has expressed concerns over its status [6]. Regarding your comment about sources, it is clear that you have not looked very deeply into press coverage of Ennis. In fact, Ennis has been at the heart of a national scandal involving sanitation and dangerous health conditions in the schools that has been extensively covered in the Irish press for years. --JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about any sources. I merely pointed out that none of them were cited in the article, and subsequently that the school cannot be called "obvious[ly] historical" without such sources. As for your source... I suppose "one of the most dilapidated schools" in the area could be considered noteworthy, on reflection. It's not the sort of accomplishment I tend to look for, personally. As for WP:N, it may be disputed, but it is not (yet) rejected, so, to the best of my knowledge, it remains a guideline. Shimeru 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Shimeru actually meant WP:N not WP:NN which is what the dispute centers around. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My link and comment directly concerns the disputed WP:N. For further info, see the WP:N talk page and the entire arbcom case. --JJay 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RHaworth 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company)

[edit]
Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 04:32Z

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

The result was delete and merge to List of films by gory death scene. Merge has already been performed and the other article is an entirely appropriate place for the material. If that article is not appropriate then a second AfD nomination is required. —Doug Bell talk 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that feature head explosions

[edit]
Movies that feature head explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-encyclopedic list. Not only is this a list of dubious value and unlikely to ever be comprehensive, it also suggests having similar lists for every other type of death or similar event depicted in a movie. Next we'll have List of movies that feature talking babies, List of movies that feature bears, etc. Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. —Doug Bell talk 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies that feature talking babies and List of movies that feature bears would be far too large to be useful compared to this one. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really...hmmm. There are 10 movies listed for exploding heads, how many times more can you come up with that have talking babies? :-P —Doug Bell talk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that List of films by gory death scene had already been up for deletion, but survived. Lemmy12 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already done, in fact.--Tenka Muteki 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been merged, I don't see how this debate should be continued further. I'll edit the newly-added section in List of films by gory death scene to be in alphabetical order. Lemmy12 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marakay Rogers

[edit]
Marakay Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Ran once for PA office as a green in 2002. Wasn't on the ballot for governor in 2006 even though article claims she was a candidate. Holds no other office. Montco 04:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Featherman

[edit]
John Featherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Did not even appear on GOP primary ballot in 2006. No other notable factors. Montco 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wofford

[edit]
Dan Wofford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Nothing else suggests notability. Montco 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, are we going to start deleting the pages of every candidate that lost a Congressional election? That could be quite a task if we're setting such a precedent. User:Bruceberry
    • Comment You don't think its a poor precedent to have pages for every single candidate under the sun whether or not they are notable? I have no proposed deleting every single losing candidate. Some individuals are indeed notable outside of their failed candidacies. Some are not. Montco 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a major-party nominee for Congress is notable, ipso facto. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infra-progression

[edit]

Infra-progression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original research with no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Not a dog 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotobo

[edit]
Cotobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nom - Prod & Prod2 removed without explanation; Prod read: This topic is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. "Cotobo" has not been mentioned in any third party sources, and there also isn't any proof that "Cotobo" isn't a password-stealing program. There aren't pages for the several RuneScape bots that exist. As a minimum, this should be merged with Conquer Online; it certainly doesn't rate its own article Rklawton 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Avillo

[edit]
Phil Avillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Took only 33.5% of the vote. Non-notable otherwise. Montco 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep- Slightly notable, he got some votes... Could be worked on, though.--SUIT 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Getting "some votes" would be a rather extreme loosening of notability guidelines. I think its generally prefereable that candidate wither win an election or make a big enough stink during an election that he gets tons of press coverage. Montco 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Now that the election is over, this entry seems to have very little valuable information. If we don't want to delete, maybe we could even redirect to another page dealing with the Pennsylvania 19th district congressional elections for 2006? Lois Murphy, who ran in PA's 6th district, did way better than Avillo, and she no longer has her own page. Instead, trying to get information on Murphy will redirect you to the Pennsylvania 6th congressional district election, 2006 article. --WayneNight 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Losing political candidates seem to represent an interesting challenge for the notability policies. By virtue of running in an election, a person will inevitably garner some media coverage. But, will it matter in five years? So, I think losing an unremarkable election is insufficient grounds, in and of itself, for inclusion. I might have suggested merge to Todd Russell Platts, but almost the entire contents of this article are already there. -Kubigula (ave) 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Romanelli

[edit]
Carl Romanelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political candidate, briefly ran for Senate in PA, never even got on the ballot. Nothing else in background suggests notability. Montco 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alex Bakharev 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Foundation for Civil Liberties

[edit]

From speedy. It is a marginally notable fund, I have heard its name a few times. Besides it might be involved with Alexander Litvinenko poisoning Alex Bakharev 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Vedova

[edit]

Strong Delete - Completely devoid of almost any information; valueless; poor grammar and spelling ("Espressionism"); what is "corrente"?; no links or explanations of terminology; etc. 216.194.4.255 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42...delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of flashbacks on Lost

[edit]
List of flashbacks on Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is unencyclopedic fancruft and does not present information better than List of Lost episodes or individual character pages. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED FLASHBACK SUMMARIES TO ALL EPISODES - WORK IN PROGRESS --SilvaStorm
No that won't solve the issue...and that is strange logic seeing as nobody has presented lack of material as an argument. It's the nature of the material, and adding more doesn't make it better...quite the opposite in fact. —Doug Bell talk 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, check user pages of yours, mine and Spawn Man - somewhere there they mentioned lack of material! I have added details to every flashback episode. --SilvaStorm
No, you're confusing lack of material with uselessness, (from before you added the details in any case anyway...). As I said before, every episode has a flashback, so you may as well see the list of episodes list. Whatever the case, the article is fan cruft & its contents can be seen in any of the episode articles... Spawn Man 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scoles

[edit]
Paul Scoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Ran unsuccessully for Congress in 2004. Nothng else to suggest notability. Montco 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/withdrawn. Well, the articles definitely need to be improved, but I'll take all of your words for it that the book and person are notable. —Cuiviénen 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Riesman

[edit]
David Riesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
with The Lonely Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author and lawyer, doesn't seem to quite meet notability requirements. Tagged as unreferenced for over a month with no edits whatsoever, but really the lack of references makes it difficult for me to see notability. Google and Amazon don't turn up much. Also nominating The Lonely Crowd, the article on his book that reads like a book review and has also been untouched for a while. Neither seems to manage notability, though I'd be happy to see otherwise. —Cuiviénen 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Dmz5 DGG 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional cities

[edit]
List of fictional cities A-M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional cities N-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What reason is there to have these huge unwieldly lists of things that are entirely unrelated, other than being fictional cities? -Amarkov blahedits 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is. You can check the category mentioned for subcats.- Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat frog

[edit]
Fat frog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Only reference is for the recipe, no other claims in article are sourced. Prod removed with comment that this drink is popular in Ireland, but that fact is not in evidence and wouldn't in itself make the subject encyclopedic anyway. Quale 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money manager ex

[edit]
Money manager ex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. No evidence that subject of article meets notability criteria proposed at WP:SOFTWARE. Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about every single project that happens to be hosted at Sourceforge. --Kinu t/c 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salo in Space

[edit]

A not notable dead webcomic, kept the first time. It had only two dozen updates and then since February, it has been pinning for the fjords. bogdan 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haaallllloooo Polly! Sorry, was just using that as an excuse to work in some gratuitous Parrot Sketch references... ;-) Tubezone 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Coredesat 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming engineer

[edit]
Flaming engineer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. The only source is a drinks website that solicits reader submitted recipes and shows scant evidence of editorial control, so WP:RS and WP:V are serious problems as well. Quale 07:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Jesus

[edit]
Purple Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references for any claims in article despite being tagged {{unreferenced}} since June 2006. Prod removed with comment that it "isn't a neologism", which doesn't seem to address the point. Quale 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate cake (drink)

[edit]
Chocolate cake (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, the only reference given appears to be a blog, failing WP:RS. Prod removed with the comment "doing research". Quale 07:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doom source port, which has already been done to the extent such content can be encyclopedic (which long features lists are generally not). Therefore, redirected. This outcome is most likely to be at least acceptable to most of the earlier commenters. Whether to expand or to reduce this content on Doom source port is now an editorial question. Sandstein 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZDoom

[edit]
ZDoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's about a source port of Doom; but, there is no evidence it meets the notability guideline WP:SOFTWARE nor official policy WP:V and WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most popular (if not the most popular) source ports of doom, over 100,000 google hits on the name, including coverage on IGN, Gamespy, sourceforge, and freshmeat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Have any particular links of said coverage? All I can find is the game's name on IGN et al. (no reviews or anything), and the standard news posts on Sourceforge / Freshmeat that every project that registers there gets. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Night Gyr - Vicer 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. Although there are pages about this game on IGN, GameSpy and other websites, they are nothing more than the basic information about the game, such as a small description and some details. GameSpy hasn't even given it a GameSpy Score. WP:SOFTWARE explicitly states:

    This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
    - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
    - Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.

    Note the bolded part. So I'm going to have to go with delete. Jayden54 10:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There are no claims of notability and appears mostly to be spam. Relatively little content. The only content I see is that Zdoom is an open source port of Doom with many features. (one sentence article) It seems that it would be worth mentioning it on the Doom page however. To those who want this kept I would more explictly say as others have: Clean it up, establish notability, improve references, remove the spam/features section. It does get 100K plus ghits so it may be possible to fix these problems.--Nick Y. 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancer

[edit]
Technomancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is completely original research which violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a fanfiction essay. Here, Google the word. Tubezone 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I knew what I would say on the AfD from the first sentence I read on this article, an essay. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank but Rewrite The term Technomancer has some usages, and as such, probably at least needs to exist as a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The best we're going to get on this topic is a non-notable neologism dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom original research .--John Lake 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose I should clarify where I think the Technomancer disambig should cover. [[First, there is GURPS Technomancer and there's also Technomancer Press, Technopathy, and possible groups such as Order of Hermes and the Technomages of Babylon 5. And that's just what I can come up with easily. Anybody else agree with disambiguating? (Current content need not be kept) FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Would have said "keep" if it had been in any way related to RL uses of the term [per FrozenPurpleCube] -- Simon Cursitor 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok...new here. My first contrib. I guess I am confused about what is definable as orginal research, even after reading the description. As pointed out, the term has been used in many publications- mostly role playing games- therefore, it is an accpeted term- it is the (my) definition that should be at issue.. But then you see my conundrum is that role playing games are made up from the imagination in most cases. I fail to see how a term in a made-up RPG can ever be accepted...but obviously, according to wikipedia's rules, that is allowed. I also have personal issues understanding the policy, since it seems that for something to be an 'accepted term' either someone on wiki has to have heard of it, or it can be googled or something. If those are the rules, those are the rules- I'm not complaining- just fail to completely understand the rationality. Let's say I write a book, and completely make up a new word. If I can reference it in a book, apparently that makes it 'wiki-able'- is what i am understanding. That makes me want to dig up that old book of sniglets from the 80's....would sniglets be rejected, if referenced from a publication? They are clearly made-up words. This is an honest question- not trying to be a smart-aleck. I don't have any vested interest in this term being on the wiki, except that some people actually follow these philosophies, and call themselves that. It is an underground subculture of sorts- a sort of modern-day religion that is very new...but since it is not referenceable, yet in books or the net, I will concede that my contrib meets OR as defined....my mistake, which i realize in hindsight. However, again since i am new here, I thought I was just *starting a page, that other people would come along in and add the GURPS defs, et al. No big deal- delete if you feel the need.Romshadow 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply the problem with your definition is that it is pretty limited to your ideas, and you did not demonstrate those ideas as shared by anyone else. That may be valid content for many places on the Web, but Wikipedia is not the place for original thought. That is expressed in WP:OR. To take your sniglet example, I don't know what they are, but if they're in a book somewhere, it's at least possible that said content would be worthy of an article (though if the book isn't all that notable, it might be best just to have the book, and not all the possible things within it). However, you shouldn't create sniglets for Wikipedia. It's like Jedi Knights. Wikipedia isn't the place for George Lucas, or anybody else to write stories about them. Now we can write about the stories with Jedi Knights in them, and have completely valid articles. Do you see the difference? In this case, you seem to have produced thoughts on Technomancers, but haven't related them to any real-world content. My suggestion if you want this article, would be to discuss them in say, the terms of the RPGs they appear in, and the other stories where they are present. If somehow, it became real-world important, then you could have something like Jedi census phenomenon. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I think an entry on Technomancy and Technomancers would be useful, as a term used in RPGs, fantasy, etc, the current version contains nothing salvageable. --HarrisX 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge seems complicated but it seems to have some support. W.marsh 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of deus ex machina examples

[edit]
List of deus ex machina examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Every single one of these is an item of original research literary analysis, and the list as a whole is utterly indiscriminate in scope, considering how widespread this device is. Recently closed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series, as delete. This is just as original in its research with an even more indiscriminate scope. I would like a shorter list of examples that have sources to identify each, but without sources this fails WP:OR and WP:V. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, although the point that's been raised a couple of times here is that this list is somewhat original research-y. What I know about literature studies can be written on a biscuit, but I'm not convinced that scholars would agree that each of these is a deus ex machina. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps that very statement is OR on your part--the criterion is a little slippery. :)DGG 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I disagree. If literature theorists 1, 2 and 3 all argue that some of the contents of this list are legitimate deus ex machinas, then all that remains is to hunt up citations for that and call that part of the list verifiable (what to do with said verifiable list is anyone's guess, but it's verifiable at least). If, however, the only reason that a particular deux ex machina is included here is because an editor acting on their own behalf felt that it was one, then it's Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have the originator of the article pick 20 or so examples, from classic and modern fiction, merge it then lock it. 144.87.143.3 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the list should be copied to a subpage of the talk page of the main page of the topic so it can be discussed further which ones are valuable, if 1 person picks the 20 someone will scream "Hey why didn't you include that one!" and stuff. --WikiSlasher 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATF Hire Group

[edit]
ATF Hire Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prolific link spamming Richard W.M. Jones 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The users below have created a complex set of redirects designed to raise the Page Rank of this company for various phrases, including: Security Fencing, Deck guard, Deck Guardrail Australia, Fencing Hire, Deck Guardrail Group, Australian Temporary Fencing, Deck Height Safety, Aotearoa Temporary Fencing and more. They all eventually point to this page.

The following users are involved: User talk:FrankyTheMan, User talk:BillyBob79, User talk:TraceyMcDonald6767, User talk:Sd85478547, User talk:218.215.3.179, User talk:202.86.214.14. All these users have been only, or largely, involved in editing just ATF-related pages and spam terms.

Full list of linkspam redirects: Special:Whatlinkshere/ATF_Hire_Group

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Eternity

[edit]
Kim Eternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This minor porn actress does not fulfil any of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), and as such falls foul of WP:BIO. Vizjim 09:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - why are porn star bios always deleted? I think there are too many christian zealots tearing pages out of history on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator MacReady (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2006
I voted Delete, and I'm not a "christian zealot" at all, and in fact welcome any kind of pornography related articles, and have worked on a few. But this pornstar simply doesn't pass the notability guidelines to be included, because she has done nothing notable. No awards, no shoots in well-known magazines and nothing noteworthy in her niche. Jayden54 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed: this is a redirect, not an article, so it belongs at RFD. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruff n' Tumble (Computer Game)

[edit]
Ruff n' Tumble (Computer Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The disamiguation in parantheses is unneeded because the article (without disambig) didn't exist. And it is wrongly capitalized anyway. Michael Drüing 09:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems like a fairly unnecessary article, and there are no internal links so I don't see why it can't be deleted. If others don't agree it should be deleted, I suggest we simply leave the redirect in place. Jayden54 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Saperstone

[edit]
Jeff Saperstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article essentially is a vanity piece. While the subject may be a fine reporter, he has not achieved enough fame or notoriety to merit a Wiki entry. Burghboy80 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales. Sandstein 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Cargelligo Central School

[edit]
Lake Cargelligo Central School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable school in Australia Vicer 10:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks, that's a good point. Then it should be merged with the locality as some others have discussed. JoshuaZ 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 persuasive argument that the article fails WP:WEB has not been adequately addressed by those arguing otherwise. RockMFR's merger suggestion on account of the site's tools being notable would imply that content on the tools be merged, not on the site. The site, at any rate, is already mentioned at Utopia (online game). If anyone strongly wants to merge more content there, the deleted text is available on request. Sandstein 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Temple

[edit]
Utopia Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a non-notable fan forum. No assertion of notability is made, no reliable sources are included, it fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep if you are going to delete this article, POINT OUT EXACTLY which points that it fails on. I cannot see that UtopiaTemple "definitely fails" certain criterias on links that you have provided. IMO, you have clearly misunderstood, and to an fact, underestimated the influence of this website on the Utopia, in particular tools used for the game. NeoDeGenero 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - as others have stated, it is THE tool/accessory for the game. NeoDeGenero 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It fails every criterion of WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster--RWR8189 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." --- Starfriend 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, rewrite: In Utopia, nearly everyone uses Angel from Utopia Temple simply because they are at such a huge disadvantage if they don't. While I agree the forum itself is not-notable, the community as a whole at Utopia Temple is very notable because it's widely held that the Angel software is what keeps Utopia as the top web-based MMOG. To delete this article out of notability is to delete the largest community in the largest web-based MMOG. Utopianheaven 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Judge Certification Program

[edit]
Beer Judge Certification Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG It includes no sources and no references and should be deleted. Mikebe 11:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note:This article was prod'ed and prod2'd. Both tags were removed and this AfD was listed, although the tag wasn't added to the article. I've done that now. Note, however, that "BJCP" redirects to "Beer Judge Certification Program", which explains the slightly odd syntax of the AfD tag at the article. I've assumed that the nominator intended to nominate the article and not the redirect. No opinion on the AfD itself, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all relevant to the WG:ORG requirements. Secondly, the links you provide are for home-brewing, not for the BJCP. Thirdly, why not just move some of the information to a home-brewing article? This article serves no purpose. Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Published sources are essential in determining notability. While a few of the blog entries are irrelevant, the newspaper articles listed are relevant per WP:N. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable. AFD nomination is part of a crusade by two editors to re-write all of the beer articles in order to bring them in line with a website which is run by one of the editors (note url). In edit summaries, they call BJCP beer style standards "fictitious". Another relevant conversation. I actually support having correctly sourced style guidelines from multiple sources. But I do not support the deletion of guidelines and articles because two editors disagree with them. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we argue this with facts rather than personal attacks. I've actually given up trying to correct the many errors I find in the beer articles because of this kind of response. Just check my recent contributions: most have just removed vandalism or added references. As I said before, I have more constructive things to do with my time than get involved in petty arguments like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patto1ro (talk • contribs) .
  • First of all, you are making personal attacks, and ignoring the question of validity of the article. Secondly, the question is not whether the attacks were false or not, the question is why you made them. And, although this has nothing to do with the proposed deletion of this article, the other editor was and is correct that the Märzen article is mostly inaccurate. If you are interested in accuracy, look here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rzen_%28Bier%29 Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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'm going out on a limb here, and I fully expect this to be challenged at WP:DRV (see y'all there). This has already been through one AfD, which closed sans consensus. The issue then was reliable sources. The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

[edit]
Ali Sina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Zakir Naik.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, the article should not have had the prod template used by User:72.75.93.131 as that specifically is used for article that have not previously been up as AfD. Are the comments within the "prod" proposal relevant as linked to above or do they give an undue weight to what User:72.75.93.131 says ? Ttiotsw 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not really notable. We can evaluate the lines that are used to establish some sort of notability in his article:
  1. An Asia Times (online-only newspaper) editorial mentions him/his website in two lines. Does that really make him notable?
  2. He has been mentioned on Frontpage Magazine's website, a highly conservative source. The magazine itself isn't particularly notable nor is there enough material in the article to write about him. The symposium in which he participates includes several other non-notable people.
  3. He has been mentioned on WorldNetDaily. This is, again, a highly conservative blog, and the article that mentions him is unattributed to any author; it is unlikely to be a reliable source considering that.
  4. He is the author of a non-published book. That doesn't make him notable either.
  5. He is the owner of a website that itself is non-notable. That doesn't make him notable.
All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates. There simply isn't enough reliable third-party material about the subject to write a good article about him, which is further an indication of the lack of notability of this person. Azrak 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is his website not notable? --Matt57 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it particularly notable? BhaiSaab talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, how exactly being "highly conservative" makes the sources mentioning him unreliable? What does the political leaning of a source has to do with credibility? Had he been mentioned in a "highly liberal" source would you then consider him being notable? 80.179.36.5 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the bias of the source is. It matters if the articles are attributed to a writer or not. The articles are unattributed. BhaiSaab talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A website that has been banned by Pakistan's IPS's is surely notable.--Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we would then be able to say that each and every blog on blogspot is notable. BhaiSaab talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs werent targetted individually. FaithFreedom.org has been targetted specifically by Pakistan's ISP's and has been banned there. Now you're saying any random blog XYZ is as notable as FaithFreedom because they're also banned? That doesnt make sense, sorry. --Matt57 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the logic you applied. Not I. You would be hard-pressed to prove that every website mentioned here is notable just because it's banned by Pakistani ISP's. BhaiSaab talk 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being banned by a country's IPS can be ONE of the reasons why a website may be notable. Another reason is that the website ranks in the top 30,000 according to Alexa. Another reason why his website is notable is that it seems all Wikipedias who edit on the subject of Islam know about this website. If all of them know and almost all do, his website is notable enough. Everything else combined makes him and his website notable. As I said, people who want this page to be deleted belong to the group that disagrees with his opinions. And again if he has caused so much discussion on Wikipedia, he's DEFINITELY notable. In summary Ali Sina is much more popular than the average college professor and hence is notable.--Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not really notable
  1. Nobody is sure that this person really exist. As his existence cannot be proved how can be he is notable. --Mak82hyd 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darth Vader is pretty notable and I'm sure he doesn't exist (right?!). I'd also like to see you either prove the existence of [[[God]] or claim he isn't notable. Rune X2 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just because an article has turned into a soapbox (which is temporary anyway), does not mean the article should be nominated for deletion. Revert Wars also do not imply that an article should be deleted. In case of a bio, the only rationale for deletion can be non-notablility. Here are some reasons why he is notable in my opinion:
Ali Sina passes the Alternate "Professor test" at WP:BIO, which says: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.". The following two points support this:
  1. He passes the "Search engine" test: His name comes up 80,000 times, not counting the results on his own websites and this one. Search engine popularity is one method of the Alternate tests of Notability (see WP:BIO).
  2. His website is within the top 30,000 websites according to alexa.
So he is definitely more well-known than the average college professor and so according to WP:BIO he is definitely notable and so should not be deleted.--Matt57 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not only for college professors. Read it carefully! It says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor". If the test was for college professors only, they wouldnt say that. The term "average college professor" is used as a meter to gauge popularity. --Matt57 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mate, read the definition properly it says an individual, which means a person and how do u know he exists do have any proof? have u seen him. he is an entity created for some hate purpose. think open minded rather than being islamophobic. 88.108.181.18 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is an entity created for hate purposes? Are'nt you being anti-Islam-ophobic yourself? --Matt57 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the proposed policy only applies to academics. Ali Sina is not an academic as far as we know. BhaiSaab talk 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy does not only apply to Academics. The Professor Test is a sort of "Meter" to gauge the popularity of any person. That can even apply to a homeless man if he's become that popular. This point was also raised by 72.75.93.131. See the Talk page of this article. --Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Azrak. This person is solely an internet personality. He is not known anywhere else. A large amount of Google hits, therefore, isn't necessarily indicative of notability. BhaiSaab talk 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not only known on the internet. His testimony of leaving Islam is present in Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Plus lets remember the fact that he was threatened with lawsuits and death threats. Also, he's debated with famous figures of Islam like Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. The fact that he has a pseudonym does not mean he's not notable. All these things together reflect that he is a notable ex-muslim. --Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I forgot about his mention in that book. Though debating with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri doesn't necessarily make him notable. Montazeri has spoken to thousands of people in his life, but that doesn't make them all notable. BhaiSaab talk 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: I suspect this IP user is user:Mak82hyd who has already voted above. New IP's should be discarded for these votes. --Matt57 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Zakir Naik There does seem to be an effort to censor content from some factions of this afd (especially looking at the previous afd). It is true however that the article itself stinks of being a soap box. I would mark it with clean up tags. She does appear to be a contraversial figure with much written about her in many places. Certainly seems to be one of the more notable critics of Islam although from a more firey than academic bent. Most of the english language coverage does seem to be internet based and often end up back at her web site. The extraordinary level of contraversy however lends quite a bit to the notability claim. Among the 100,000 plus ghits "roughly" a third were about her and many of them were critical to hateful. She seems to have pissed off a large portion of the world. I'd say that makes her notable.--Nick Y. 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is male, not female. BhaiSaab talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt matter if its male or female. Infact non-biased votes are the best becuase they can see the situation objectively. Plus they made good points. --Matt57 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article needs wikifying, but the subject is notable, as the amount of adverse criticism indicates. and as the amount of debate above illustrates. If we can argue so much about him, he's notable. To me, a very obvious instance of what we want in WP. DGG 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I voted a conditional keep at the first nomination. I wanted the article to follow wikipedia standards but there was no single enhancement whatsoever. There are more than 100 sources and all of them refer to his/their own site. Unbelieveable! his (if he's one real person indeed) notability is so highly questionable. I also have BIG doubts about the involvement of Ali Sina or Ali Sinas in the article. They are campaigning for edit warring and they come all together from a few Anti-Islam forums. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I considered delete in one of the first VfDs (is this really only the second?) because I didn't think he was notable. However, I think anyone realizing the trends of Wikipedia over the last year or two should realize that notability standards are dropping. He may be less popular than most internet memes but we're even allowing pretty much any book published (even by relatively NN press) have an article. Is Ali Sina notable? Not particularly... but, look at Wikipedia standards... and compared to them I think the answer is he's notable enough. This and the Naik deletion seem like bickering to me... I don't mean the nominator. His intentions seem noble enough to me... I just think that we've gone too far down the road of inclusion to get rid of either Ali Sina or Naik. gren グレン 10:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article offers valuable info IP's first edit— 72.83.152.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
since when was an AfD a "vote"? ITAQALLAH 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - just a terminology issue so it is not "VOTES" but "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.". Matt57 is highlighting suspicions regarding multiple recommendations of what he feels is a IP sock puppet. Ttiotsw 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um yea, unfortunately, muslims like you and infidels like me dont have a website that ranks in the top 30,000, or have 80,000 hits on their name in google, are prospective authors of a book and have their testimony included in Ibn Warraq's book. I guess he is like us after all. --Matt57 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep . The sheer hatred and bigotry that he engenders in others makes him notable and also make it wise of him to be somewhat untracable: his Pseudonymity is not grounds for deletion. The google hits also help his notablility. I've done a few edits to this page, some stick and other get reverted. I don't like my edits reverted on any page as I feel I research each edit reasonably well but I'm happy to admit I am wrong when I'm wrong but with the reverts done to my edits on this page I don't feel I'm wrong. Even if it is proven later that he is simply a meme then I feel he represents an archetype of an apostate muslim - thats notable. Ttiotsw 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ali Sina is a highly notable founder of Faith Freedom International, which states on its web site that it is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims whose goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity[25]--CltFn 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep With a review of sources, this article has the potential to provide very valuable information. The very fact that so many pro-muslim vandals are around signifies the importance of this person.
  • Comment: Nominator, you said: "All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates." Remember that some people are smart and make sure news articles don't disappear when links go dead by keeping copies on their own pages. The location where articles are stored are not relevant. Who wrote them is. - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is about a person whose real name we do not know, we do not know if he exists or not. He (supposed to) run hate websites and write there. People who hate Islam use him as reference on wikipedia Islamic articles. What degrees he had? We have no idea. We live in a world where every hater of Islam is appreciate on wikipedia and outside it. No one cares if he use Quran Ayats out-of-context or if he really exist. Shame!. --- ALM 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per everyone above. Peace, please. Arrow740 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Szvest This person's notability at one end, but this article has become a ground for gross violation of WP:RS, which says: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." And there seems very little hope to improve the article with abiding all these policies. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think that the issue of "notability" doesn't apply since there are tons of articles on wiki about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets. As for the soapbox issue: If there is edit-warring or inappropriate editing going on in the article, it can be dealt with according to wiki guidelines and policy. It has been long-established that POV issues in the article are not the basis for an article's deletion. I agree that there is some suspicious/bad faith nom stuff going on, all the argument's put forth center on his views etc, it wouldn't surprise me if the delete votes belong to people who share an opposition to his views like Matt57 said. Baristarim 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This is an example of Wikipedia being used for getting more visitors. Its deletion will do more good to Wikipedia than lot of editors wasting time on reverting/correcting the advertizing campaigns for the site of a (fictional?) person. --Soft coderTalk 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is a self created, self sustained myth. With no face, no education, no credibility, no decency ....no nothing . The article copies his own views about himself . He also sends his worshipers to keep this article , his well known friends/clones include CltFn & Karl Meir . The only reason this article is kept is to increase his site's hitrate . Is wikipedia open for marketing ?? F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FaithFreedom has a forum with hundreds of thousands of posts. The site itself is often linked to by other sites. The website is definitely notable. That makes an article on the owner worth having. Weather the name is real or a pseudonym, is really immaterial – except that if such doubts exists it should be noted in the article. Rune X2 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Firstly because he's anonymous, secondly anyone can send an email to the pentagon/whitehouse/state department/president of the US or any other country for that matter and claim to have 'debated' when they get a reply. He's not-notable. A simple search on google trends for "Ali Sina" will verify this [26], and since some people want to link this AfD with the Zakir Naik Article, just take a look at the people searching for Zakir Naik compared to Steve Ballmer [27]. Anyway, coming back to the article, I think it worthless enough to be deleted, and create a seperate faithfreedom article if that site is popular. Why not make articles about users that have 10000+ edits on wikipedia then (just for reference). thestick 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many forums in Indian Express online for example where they post their links - like Want to find the truth (?) on Islam ..Click www.faithfree***.com.In short..spamming.MerryJ-Ho
  • Keep though perhaps Merge with the faithfreedom article. Notable personality (even if through a nom de plume) like Ibn Warraq and others. He uses a pseudonym to avoid death threats (unlike poor Irshad Manji). The fact that his name is unknown is not enough reason to delete the article.His only association is with faithfreedom so perhaps merge both articles. Hkelkar 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expected,seeing your voting patterns MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, I'm going with Keep. I think it's important that the tone of the article be as close to NPOV as possible, and I hope interested parties will monitor this. If this means lots of rewriting, frequent edits and reverts I don't mind, so long as everyone involves assumes good faith and acts as constructively as they can. Debate is healthy, and this guy does appear notable enough. WMMartin 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article seems to assert notability.Bakaman 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expected,seeing your voting patterns. MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TROLL. Also I voted keep at the other dude as well. Nobody needs your fundywatching either.Bakaman 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alexa rankings are among the most controversial methods of website measurements.Working as a Webmaster of an Industry Magazine, I have tested and discarded Alexa as an accurate tool.MerryJ-Ho 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How come? If thats so, why is Yahoo #1 and Wikipedia #12? --Matt57 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even discounting problematic "votes". That goes for the rewrite and cleanup tags, too, however - those stay. --Coredesat 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

[edit]
Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Ali Sina..

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakir Naik. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, this article is more of a battleground. Moreover the "His Views" part is no where according to Wikipedia standards, citations are not verifiable, also most of the article is quoted out of context proving a certain POV which is not neutral, good or bad depends upon who you ask, but atleast not neutral. Akeeq 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral right now. Is there any substantial coverage by reliable third-party sources on this person? I could find none on first review. If no such sources are provided, delete. Sandstein 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources found by Mereda indicate notability. Still needs WP:NOR/WP:RS cleanup, of course. Sandstein 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Article is very well written leading me to believe that he might be notable. But all the references and external links are from blogs, youtube and secondary sites. Google News just gives me two hits, [31]. If anyone can provide references from newspapers or scholarly publications, I'll change my vote to Keep. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the three news sources I cited above are in line with WP:RS. What do others think? --Mereda 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It depends which version you read ... it flip-flops every few hours because of the revert war ... some versions are obviously written by an English as a second language editor. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with a complete re-write and re-format. he is notable enough, but the "article" is just a war zone right now. I can't think of any wikipedia policy that hasn't been ignored in it! --khello 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Ali Sina Very similar to Ali Sina above except of the opposite political bent. I would suggest to the admin that the two be considered together since there is clearly strong factions trying to afd and edit each other out of existance in wikispace. This would cancel a large number of teh votes since they are based on politcal bias. This one also needs cleanup tags. These type of articles are a real problem. I think they need more of a heavy handed and quick admin with superpowers to bring them to the quality of an encyclopedia. Both could be dramatically shortened and perhaps protected.--Nick Y. 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That protection wouldnt do anything. These controversial topics are forever undergoing revert wars. Its ridiculous to give vandalism powers to anyone new who comes to Wikipedia. Just one example is Mak82kyd, who started to vandalize both of these articles (I will say that because of him, these articles were nominated for deletion, because he reverted the Deletion requester's good edits on Zakir Naik so much so that he nominated them for Deletion - this is the truth behind these two Deletion requests). Mak82hyd also voted twice for the deletion of Ali Sina - his writing style is similiar and his IP is similiar to what he has used before. At one point, he proceeded to delete huge amounts of information on Ali Sina while saying he didnt know he had deleted stuff. Currently, Wikipedia has no policies at all for dealing with vandals who jump into Wikipedia and start destroying articles with their own agendas. There is no mechanism to protect such articles from editors who wont stop taking part in revert wars. The 3RR rule does little. This is equivalent to allowing someone to terrorize Wikipedia. Its stupid to give such powers to vandals. There's a real need for a new kind of protection.--Matt57 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. There are, however, mechanisms to get vandals and even counterproductive editors banned for longer periods of time but they take a while. The reason they take so long is to be fair, however it is clear to me that certain spaces in wikipedia need a stronger sheriff that is less concerned with fairness and more concerned with order. Editors would need to tread lightly in these designated areas. I think it may be more productive to bring these articles to the arbiration commitee than to afd, even though it may be a burdensome process. These afds are likely to result in nothing.--Nick Y. 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden. [2]

The introductory screen for the video linked to the citation for that quote has the text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik at the bottom of the screen (circled in red) ... does anyone else see that as a WP:COI problem? I mean, isn't the subject advertising that they have a Wikipedia article in order to gain verisimilitude (if not notability and/or notoriety)? —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and when did a long-winded video soundbyte of the subject pontificating that's been posted on YouTube or Google Video become a credible 3rd part source? (Besides which, not everyone has a high-speed connection to be able to view them ... see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided if you are unclear on the concept.) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep query motive of nomminator: series of cut'n'paste afds with little specificity (is used as soapbox? which guideline says that makes for afd? if anything it's grounds for lock article). even if this is not some sort of pov campaign, this pro-forma approach to afd noms doesn't deserve to be taken seriously  ⇒ bsnowball  13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would question though what the heck this nonsense edit by user:72.75.93.131 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Warraq&diff=91182779&oldid=90180972 actually means. I'm very suspicious of anything user:72.75.93.131 says now. Check their talk page history. 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we either take all (even obscure) religious scholars or none, if our credibility is attacked everywhere we should not expose us to attack about our neutrality Alf photoman 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously Strong Keep, No, I mean it, I love this guy. Geologically speaking he's about as relevant to planet earth as my belly button fluff but I leave my idealogy at the door when I log-on so he feels notable and notability is simply a feeling with guidelines. I'd also like to say that it would be amazing to see his MP3 Playlists; he must go down like a ton of bricks at parties, boom, boom. (revised as someone mentioned bacon and wifeswapping) Ttiotsw 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If an article is being used as a soapbox it should be fixed and protected from abuse, rather than deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of Pakistanies are real fan of him, inside Pakistan and outside it. Notable enough for me. As oppose to Ali Sina he exist and we know him as a real person. He speaks live many time and meet people. Not some imaginary person with imaginary name like Ali Sina. --- ALM 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - not again. There was resounding consensus from previous AFD, Dr Naik is very notable and his biography an important addition to wiki. Wikipidian 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I dont understand how stupid Wikipedia can be, letting someone nominate this article for the 2nd time when just 20 days ago, it had been nominated and the result was a definite keep: "The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)" . This just shows there's something wrong with the policies here. Requesting a needless AFD is disruptive. What now, do you all want me to nominate this for a 3rd time after 20 days now, huh? What do you think, everyone?? Lets do another nomination and keep doing this every 20 days - right? What should have been done is the AFD should have been removed and the nominator being WARNED for disrupting Wikipedia. Thats the policy that should be here. Instead we are here, discussing it again like people with short term memory loss. What is this, a display of our egos? Our power to nominate something for Deletion and then voting (or opinions) for this as well? Thats what it is. Wikipedia's policies regarding this are immature and undeveloped and its sad that no one can see this. If the policies are wrong and no one can see that, then there's something very wrong in Wikipedia and not with just this but some other things as well.--Matt57 13:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Yes, he is quiet famous scholar, he talks of universal brotherhood, he is peace loving, he deserves to be here.Will it be nice if a well known scholar in this present world and Wikipedia does not have his page ?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. utcursch | talk 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prechter

[edit]
Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the subject and their self-published books (New Classics Library) and newletter (Elliott Wave Theorist). Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's publications. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject engaged in revert edit wars that attempt to obfuscate the affiliation between the subject and the source of the citations. There is no credible, third-party verification of the subject's notability. See the discussion page.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qualified KEEP

I'm sorry to say that I'm one of the people considered to be edit-warring on this page, but I don't think that is just in that I've always attempted to add things and not delete.

It is difficult to say that Prechter is not notable, since he has had an article dedicated to him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and all the following make significant reference to him (I can add several articles from the Financial Times as well - he is also notable in Europe)

^ ”The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck” by Colvin, Geoffrey, Fortune; 10/16/2000, Vol. 142 Issue 9, p84-84, 1p, 2c

^ "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late" by Power, William, The Wall Street Journal, Aug 19, 1993

^ “Lost Sheep Investors Find New Bo-peeps” by Kevin G. Salwen, The Wall Street Journal, July 28, 1989

^ “Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating” by Robert McGough, The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1997

^ ”Game Over” by Kurson, Ken, Esquire; Feb99, Vol. 131 Issue 2, p44, 4p

^ ”Advisory Newsletters Don't Seem to Be Providing Quality Assistance Traders Seek from Them” by Angrist, Stanley W, The Wall Street Journal, Feb 5, 1990

^ “Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears” by Constance Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, Dec 27, 1988

^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989

^ “Lend Half an Ear to This Doomsayer” by Barker, Robert, Business Week; 7/22/2002 Issue 3792, p90-90, 1p, 2c

The trouble with this article is that Rgfolsom (Robert Folsom), who confirms that he works for Prechter, refuses to let this material into the article. I don't know how to make Folsom not revert this material - perhaps it is impossible. But I think that the article should be kept, if material from reputable publications is allowed. Of course if only material straight from Prechter is allowed, then the article should be deleted.

qualified keep Smallbones 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response to 72.75.93.131 below moved to TALK page
Moved comment from Punanimal to TALK page Smallbones 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Smallbones. Edit warring is not a deletion grounds. I tend to agree that promotional links should not be included. If it can be confirmed (the link given is broken) that the man had a NYT best seller and was mentioned on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, he seems to be at least borderline notable as a stock analyst. If the man's predictions got this much commentary, he almost surely merits an article. Argument about the content of the page should be taken to a dispute resolution process; it ain't a deletion matter. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (negative) Let's look at the first paragraph, where notability should be established ...

Prechter has authored or edited 14 books, including Conquer the Crash, a New York Times bestseller.[1] He has also published monthly financial commentary in the Elliott Wave Theorist since 1979.[2] In recent years Prechter has supported the study of socionomics, a theory about the dynamics of human social behavior. [3]

[1] is a blocked website (you have to register to read the review) ... BTW, is having one of his 14 books on the list for only one week sufficient for WP:BIO?
[2] is a reference to his self-published monthly newsletter, Elliott Wave Theorist - hardly a 3rd party claim of notability; it's just support for the assertion that he's been writing his own tip-sheet for almost 30 years.
[3] is a reference to his book, published by his own company, New Classics Library - again, very WP:COI.
If someone should include Real Citations (with ISBNs) for that list of books he has authored, we'd see that they are self-published as well ... I could write a dozen books and start my own company to publish them ... does that mean that if I can get a periodical with a Wikipedia article to write a review of one of them, then I can have a biographical article, too?
So far, the only 3rd party references for him (including those mentioned above by Smallbones) appear to demonstrate that his noteriety (not the same thing as notability) stems from his failures as a stock prognosticator. Other than that, he's not very remarkable. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP

Looks like I'll be the first editor who actually bothers to quote the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. That article says, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles," and I will show that Prechter is a public figure who meets several of the "items" in the guidelines.

  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  1. Prechter was the primary subject of "Business books take a bearish turn," a USA Today article on Aug 23, 2002, p. B3. Since 1987, Prechter has been mentioned by name 71 times in USA Today.
  2. Prechter was the primary subject of "2 Theorists Split On Elliott Wave," a New York Times article on Feb. 6, 1989, p. D6. Since 1981, Prechter has been mentioned by name 25 times in the New York Times.
  3. Prechter was the primary subject of "3600 on the Dow?," a Barron's front page article on Jan. 5, 1987. Since 1996, Prechter has been mentioned by name 34 times in Barron's/The Wall Street Journal.
  4. Prechter was the primary subject of "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," a Futures magazine cover article, Nov. 2004.
  5. Prechter was the primary subject of "Why Bears Growl," a Kiplinger Personal Finance article, October 2005, p. 46.
  6. Prechter was the primary subject of "Bob Prechter Interview," The Technical Analyst cover article, July/August 2006 issue.
  • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

Contrary to the false claim that Prechter's books are all self-published, Elliott Wave Principle, At the Crest of the Tidal Wave, and Conquer the Crash were published by John Wiley & Sons, a large and reputable publishing house. Click on the links, the reviews are quoted on the Wiley pages.

Challenging the bestseller status of Conquer the Crash is silly. I'll remove the link that requires a subscription, but I also provided the page number in the citation for the NYT Book Review, which is for the actual list of best sellers with Conquer the Crash listed. It wasn't just on the best sellers lists for one week, either -- it was on the Wall Street Journal's bestseller list for 2 1/2 months, 12 July 2002 through 27 Sept. 2002. (Look it up online if you're a WSJ subscriber, otherwise you can hoof it the nearest library if you're motivated enough to check my facts.)

Prechter was also published in a scholarly journal, "Unconscious herding behavior as the psychological basis of financial market trends and patterns." Journal of Behavioral Finance, 2 (3), 2001, pp. 120-125.

  • Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google…

A Google search for "Robert Prechter" brings more than 60,000 results -- and those EXCLUDE results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. What's more, some 28,000 of the Google search results are non-English language, so Prechter has wide international notability.

Finally, for the record, my edits to Prechter's bio have NOT included ANY links to Prechter's products or commercial web site. This claim is rubbish, as anyone who checks the list of my contributions will plainly see.

This AFD is unnecessary and a waste of time. Prechter clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Before this AFD, I had politely said I was willing to find and include additional third-party sources for the Prechter bio. Editor 72.75.93.131 replied with rude sarcasm to my offer. This didn't have to happen. Rgfolsom 19:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes, we've read that Guideline (not an Official Policy), and please note:

"People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles"

I believe that the operative word is may, as in, "this is is not a guarantee, your results may vary, only one might not be enough" ... And please if your comment fills more than a screen of text, then put it on the Talk page and say, "See "such-and-such" section on the Talk page." —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You instigated an AFD on notability that has been steamrolled by the weight of the facts in every relevant Wikipedia criterion, including a few I didn’t even address -- such as the “widely recognized” and “professor” tests. You also made demonstrably phony claims about me using the article as a soapbox.

Yet in the face of this… you patronize me about Guidelines vs. Policy, the meaning of “may,” and where else to put all the evidence I offer? Oh my.

Oh, my. Rgfolsom 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- having no previous connection with the subject it is obvious that the amount of newspaper coverage is sufficient. I cannot account for the deletes, unless they are based on his profession or his views. People in his own field take him seriously, and that is enoughDGG 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP
The guy's marketing hype works overboard and lures in suckers by the day. He was ONCE good, in the 1980's when the waves were "easier" to read. Not any more. But the hype keeps luring suckers in. Despite having admitted that he's called 1998 to 2006 completely wrong (recent Elliott Wave Threorist said this period "has not been tradable using my tools"), the marketing machine works overboard.
The Traders Big 5 Flash service has produced such atrocious results that EWI hid them once people realised they were listed on their website. And they neglect to mention that this service has turned over 4 analysts in a year. But the marketing hyperbole continues: Whichever category you belong to, you probably don't have time to scan the markets for high-probability trading opportunities all day long, day after day, all through the year. That's what Flash does for you. In my opinion, even George Orwell would find such bending of the truth stranger than fiction.
Personally, I think the WP article, with it's fair criticism section, does a public service. There are few places on the internet where the other view can be heard. If Prechter's analysis was any good, the results should speak for themselves. Don't take my word for it, ask EWI for some statistics to prove the results that are achieved. They will probably decline and point to a trading contest win ... from nearly 25 years ago. Therefore KEEP. Punanimal 18:15, 30th November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me ... what part of "neutral point of view" do you not understand? Any criticism, fair or unfair, has not place in a Wikipedia article ... Wikipedia is not a place "where the other view can be heard" ... that's the short definition of a "soapbox", BTW. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am asking that you promptly remove the Robert Prechter biography as an article for deletion. The editor who requested the AFD spurned my prior good-faith attempt to resolve the primary sources issue. This editor also made false claims about "links to the subject's publications," plus other reckless accusations; and, given what we can all read here, there is strong reason to believe that this AFD process should not have happened at all.
Even so, I have since added reputable third-party citations to the Prechter bio. In this AFD discussion I've shown that Prechter surpasses the standards explained in Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the evidence I've presented on this page has not been challenged; it's also self-evident that the opinions expressed to "keep" the article already go beyond the rough consensus standard. Thank you. Rgfolsom 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Holiday

[edit]

Probable hoax, or Something Made Up in School One Day. The references at the bottom don't support the holiday idea: they all refer to the hoax email. Note the sentence "Since this holiday is little known and since the original hoax which it is based on was started on the Internet, wikipedia and other Internet resources are being used to spread word of this holiday." Joyous! | Talk 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José María Albareda

[edit]
José María Albareda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

stub on non-notable individual Alecmconroy 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A friend of the founder of Opus Dei and a prominent member of several notable institutions. See this spanish article on him. Of course, the article needs expanding and we need to find more verifiable sources. yandman 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Why do we continue to have Afd requests when the subject would clearly be notable if someone id the work. whoever put him in can be asked to do some more, it does not require us to do it personally.

"I never heard of him and thsi doesnt say much. he must be non-notable."DGG 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slab Day

[edit]
Slab Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced. No Importance. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Prod removed. Speedy denied. --Onorem 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Saenz

[edit]

I honestly don't know if this guy is a notable producer, but the article looks like junk imported from MySpace, and the author has ignored a suggestion to clean up the article, and is removing cleanup tags. Based on the user name, I think there is a conflict of interest issue. If we should have an article on Saenz, this certainly is not it. Upp◦land 07:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really sure where you got that idea that this is junk imported from myspace... If you did a little research or had any sort of background in the music industry you would clearly know that this page is not merely "Junk". The page is completely factual and contains no personal views of any kind. Not really sure what you need to see in order for this to be a relevant article, in which you would not bad mouth because of lack of knowledge in his industry. A little more information would be helpful for people wanting to improve the quality of articles on Wiki. JMGUSA 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had read what I wrote at your talkpage several days ago ("If you think the page deserves a chance to stay, you really need to make an effort to make it look and read like a Wikipedia article, and, most importantly, to provide independent [third-party] sources [such as reviews] that demonstrate the significance of the subject.") and acted on it, I might not have made this nomination, but you have elected to ignore it completely. The fact is that the article looks like promotional junk and the only links it has are an "official" website and a MySpace webpage (also "official"). Upp◦land 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is NOT myspace. MER-C 08:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklear

[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:BAND criteria? No hit singles or clear following apparent. Non-notable--Edchilvers 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BAND, only released one EP (the article on which has been prodded by me) and no other assertion of notability made. MER-C 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Cloasing Admin - If delete is the final verdict. It might not be a bad idea to do a redirect to Nuclear. It's not a common typ-o, but I bet there are some folks who just don't know the proper spelling. (Note, the proposed redirect points to a disamb page). →Bobby← 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right a lot of people don't know their spelling. Some even misspell the word "closing". ;) _ Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – Gurch 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCENet

[edit]
TCENet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable web portal designed by some students at a university. Mikeblas 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mindmatrix 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Radio

[edit]
The Bug Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination for 86.134.43.121 who explains on the talk page that he believes this to be advertising. No comment. Kimchi.sg 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion. Textbook case of "blatant advertising for a product that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". We're not Amazon. yandman 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwin Revestir

[edit]
Sherwin Revestir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This seems to be a borderline case, so when in doubt... Has since been moved to Foxhole (band), so I'm adapting the AfD headers. Sandstein 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhole (band)

[edit]
Foxhole (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although the article is relatively long, there's nothing there to justify inclusion. Their album "releases" are small (500 or 1000 copies...), I can find no mention of their concerts from a reliable source, the links provided are either self-publications on myspace/youtube or reviews from non-notable people, google gives no independent coverage of the band, and the article was a spa's first edit. yandman 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It seems like the issue here is not the band's legitimacy, but that the links and sources aren't ones that some would consider "notable". I have added a link to a brief review of the band's Cornerstone Festival performance. Cornerstone is an annual festival which had an attendance of over 10,000 last year. Foxhole was featured on Mono Vs. Stereo Records' national release "The Revolution Will Begin In The Blink Of An Eye". http://www.monovsstereo.com/releases.asp Also noteworthy is that that several of the Foxhole's "sister" bands have Wikipedia pages, including Anathallo and Saxon Shore. These bands have shared members, stages, and labels. They also cater to a similar audience. This seems to set a precedent. In February 2005, We the Wintering Tree made CMJ's Top 20, and subsequently the album has been in regular rotation on college radio. A quick google search of the album title will demonstrate this. Post-rock, as a genre, is characteristically "non-notable". Aside from Slint, very few bands listed in the Post-rock groups category are, by most standards of music, of little national, international, and certainly historical repute. Pressings are typically small, but they nevertheless make an impact. The same can be said of Foxhole. This is evidenced, I think, by the range and scope of praise in the reviews listed, which stretch to international lengths. Futureproofaudiolab 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Futureproofaudiolab[reply]

SEE WP:BAND. yandman 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If nothing else, the band has been covered consistently in a publication (Buzzgrinder Electronic Magazine) that is dedicated to the indie rock subculture. The band's record label, Burnt Toast Vinyl, features releases from many other notable artists, including Sufjan Stevens, whose recent release Illinois has sold over 200,000 copies.Futureproofaudiolab 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Futureproofaudiolab[reply]

PROS: On label (Burnt Toast Vinyl, of Philadelphia) with major players. Performed at many major festivals. Opened for many major acts (Unwed Sailor, Denison Witmer, Danielson Famile, Saxon Shore). Charted on CMJ Top 100 for a period in 2005. Listed on many "best of" lists, esp. those concerned with instrumental or avant-grade music. Song featured on Etnies (major skate shoe company) 2006 Tour DVD, of which there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of copies. One member of band, Gregory Belt Leppert, is very lauded graphic designer, having designed many award-winning and huge-selling album covers (Relient K's "Mmhmm," for example) as well as numerous other artworks in various markets.

CONS: Albums not platinum--but who was "Britney Spears" before some label auditioned her and marketed her and sold millions of copies? She had less to her name than Foxhole. No mention of concerts from reliable source--but Foxhole is a recording-focused band, though they've played over 100 concerts. Silver Jews played NO concerts for many many years. Should they be deleted?Kaffehaus 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Kaffehaus[reply]


PER THE GUIDELINES FOR ARTICLE VALIDATION REGARDING BANDS
Foxhole meets the following criteria:

2.) Foxhole HAS CHARTED on Top 100 of CMJ's new adds, quite a few times in 2005, actually. Email the guys at Nice Promo for more details on that.

5.) Foxhole is on a noteworthy indie label, with a roster of significant artists (have included Denison Witmer, Saxon Shore, Unwed Sailor, and others).

7.) Foxhole is has helped forge the sound of the Louisville/Nashville post-rock scene over the past five years; hear Of Asaph, Commonwealth, Telavet, The Ascent of Everest, and others for proof.

10.) Foxhole has appeared on a "soundtrack," of sorts, for the widely-distributed DVD from Etnies shoe company in 2006.


Kaffehaus 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Kaffehaus[reply]

Foxhole was featured in the print magazine "Law of Inertia" (Amazon subscription link [32]) as one of Paul Hinojos' Top 10 records of 2004. Paul Hinojos is formerly a guitarist for Sparta Sparta_(band) (ex members of At the Drive-In) and most recently a guitarist for The Mars Volta Mars_Volta. See album number 6 on the included linked image showing a clipping from the magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futureproofaudiolab (talk • contribs)

  • (edit conflict) Delete - RE the above user's Kaffehaus's justifications:
2. I'm not sure what CMJ is, but unless it is a "national music chart" (along the lines of Billboard) it doesn't satisfy this crit.
5. The crit specifies that the band must have "released two or more albums on a major label". As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened.
7. Unverified claim. Cite some sources and we can decide for ourselves.
10. Could find no record of the dvd or soundtrack.
If you can provide sources showing how the band meets the criteria, it will be a different story. Unless that happens, the article needs to be removed until Foxhole meets notability criteria. →Bobby← 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. This crit requires "multiple non trivial published works".
2. As with the CMJ case, I'm not sure if Paul Hinojo's Top 10 qualifies as a "national music chart".
3. I'm not quite sure how Hinojo's notability would affect the band in question.
Allow me to quickly say that I really admire the dedication of the two folks trying to save the article. However, it might be better to concentrate on other issues right now, and work on the Foxhole article when the band achieves notability. →Bobby← 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per above: For starters, Foxhole has released one album on BTV, a second ("We the Wintering Tree") is soon to be reissued on the same label, and a third is in production as we speak. Email [email protected] for verification.Kaffehaus 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)kaffehaus[reply]

Also: CMJ is College Music Journal, a significant chart that is held in high regard by the entire music industry. See http://www.cmj.com for more on that... No online record of the charting exists but I am in contact with CMJ to get that "proof" for you sticklers.Kaffehaus 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)kaffehaus[reply]

  • Reply - Based on the wording in the article, it appears as if Foxhole joined the label after their last album was released. This should be clarified. As to CMJ, as I understand it, the journal pubulishes charts sent in from local radio stations that pay membership fees. I'm still not sure these charts qualify under the critrion. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to be a jerk; I actually tend to lean towards inclusion. However, I also want to make sure that WP does not turn into a directory of every garage band on earth. It looks like Foxhole is quite a bit more than a garage band, but I'd still like to see the sources in the article. In the end, a well cited article is a better article which is something we all can appreciate. If you can get some sources, I'd be more than willing to help with wikifying the article. →Bobby← 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE DISCUSSION ENDER? Here is "source material" to vouch for the "two albums on a significant record label" rule: https://www.burnttoastvinyl.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/btv/store/commerce.cgi .

Kaffehaus 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Kaffehaus[reply]

  • Weakest of all possible keeps - Burnt Vinyl is hardly a major label (some would even say that it has yet to make "significant"); while CMJ is a significant trade magazine catering to the college radio crowd (I know - I was in the business for eleven years), I must point out that the "importance" of a CMJ chart is questionable at best considering that recordings can make it without official release. One particularly emphatic college program director can skew the results). The definitive standard in the United States is Billboard, with Cashbox almost alongside it until Cashbox went under about a decade ago. That said, if the individuals put the same amount of effort into the article as they did here, we wouldn't have this conversation in the first place. Don't put your sources and notability here - put it in the article and leave no doubt that an encyclopedic article about Foxhole belongs here - right now, the article doesn't show that. B.Wind 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If every bit of aforemention information (some of which, admittably, is not notable) were cited in the article as grounds for inclusion, then I'm afraid that Wikipedia wouldn't be the better for it. Indeed, it would appear as if the article were trying to over-argue for its importance, esp. when most of the post-rock already listed on Wikipedia include very little pertinent information, be it regarding charts, interviews, write-ups, soundtracks, etc. Hence, in the interest of keeping Wikipedia from hosting more questionable information, I'm ready and willing to have the article taken down. It may be only a few months before the criteria is met, but until then, as previously mentioned, there are more important things to worry about. All the same, if other post-rock groups' present listings on Wikipedia are any indication as to what makes for a suitable article, then it's very difficult to see what distinguishes such articles from the current foxhole listing. Crepelife 3.17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is the the bulk of the articles on relatively new musical acts do not meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's why it seems to have about eight AfD's for music articles each day. Please don't mistake the true purpose of the AfD: to weed out the articles that don't belong here and to enhance those that should be here but do not quite make standard. The good fight is being fought here, but the suggestions need to be incorporated into the article for it to stand on its own. Sometimes just presenting the complete picture instead of overselling will be enough to get the acceptance of the article started. But please don't take it personally, either: sooner or later, virtually every editor has his/her creation go through the process (I had three deleted in one day, unfortunately). That's part of the territory... but don't give up. B.Wind 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is kept, move it to Foxhole (band) and redirect Foxhole to Defensive fighting position. If not, simply redirect. Sean Curtin 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On balance I don't find adequate notability or enough independent referencing yet. WMMartin 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-parent crush

[edit]

This article is unsourced Original research bordering on nonsense. Created by a user who is now on indef block for vandalism. Delete.--Isotope23 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full German breakfast

[edit]
Full German breakfast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This either a hoax, a misunderstanding, or an extreme rarity. In the latter case it's unsourced. The talk page agrees. There simply isn't such a thing. Everything you ever wanted to know about what Germans eat in the morning is already in the Breakfast article Delete. Azate 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not sure its a hoax exactly since there are a few google hits [33]. The seven foot sausage thing seems either made-up, or anecdotal. The German wikipedia's article on breakfast [34] does not appear to mention any such thing and their description of a typical breakfast belies this article. Unnotable concept, unverifiable, etc. Dina 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Like Sashimi

[edit]
Raw Like Sashimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a blog, which features "full album downloads" (hello, piracy anyone)... 600k alexa rank (which shouldn't be counted anyway), most raw sashimi google links talk about the food and not the blog, and the only references to "raw sashimi +riaa" point to this wikipedia article. Hmm, for all practical purposes this fails WP:WEB. timecop 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Hopping

[edit]
Garden Hopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At best, a non notable children's game. Possibly also comes under "wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". Ladybirdintheuk 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete!! The four "masters" go to my school and are infact very well known for there work and have gained much recognition from the public. They have however, for the moment, retired from the sport, as they felt they have reached their current peak. Nevertheless, they take this daring sport very seriously and I feel that the people who insist on deleting the article speak to the boys themselves as they feel very strongly about there hard work and efforts. Maybe a few of you should also lighten up! The article is not a hoax article, it is very much real! 84.67.76.139 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 84.67.76.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy keep I don't see why my comments should be any less listened too than any others! I actually know these people and I know what it's all about. Everyone else, however does not. I can get a handful of people to express there opinions on this, who know the boys also and I intend to do so asap! 84.67.76.139 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 84.67.76.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete dumb. Close before above user makes good on her threat of sock/meatpuppetery.Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE Just because it isn't important to everyone doesn't mean it is not important to some. There are some articles on here specific to the USA that aren't important to people living in the UK but these articles are still not deleted? There is a notable amount of people affected by the issues in this article that find it important. Also the subject is becoming quite a legend around our area so Wikipedia and this article would be a valuable resource for anyone wanting to find out more about the subject. This is a similar thing to Robin Hood, he is a legend that perhaps only people living in the Nottinghamshire area would be interested in but I'm sure other people outside of the Sherwood area would be interested. The same should apply for this article. Burge 88.106.70.211 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and chuckle at the idea of some bored teenagers trespassing in suburban gardens being equated with Robin Hood. Maybe try again when Kevin Costner stars in a movie about garden hopping :-) ChrisTheDude 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public podcasting

[edit]
Public podcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Public podcasting. Public defecation. Public display of affection. What do these 3 things have in common? You got it. They don't belong on wikipedia because wikipedia is not a dictionary. What useful content (none really) that can be merged into podcasting, and this deleted with extreme prejudice. Notice, every 'external link' in the article is just pure blogspam. timecop 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrillblog

[edit]
Shrillblog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alexa ranking in 2million, 150ish google hits (mostly irrelevant blogroll-type cruft, this clearly fails WP:WEB. I'd speedy this, but it would probably generate hate. If not, feel free to speedy. timecop 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:WEB and doesn't appear to be notable at all. No sources either to show any notability, so delete. Jayden54 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. a page about a blog. - Femmina 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - ^ What he said, I'm tired of all the blogtards getting their own pages in a wiki. Go make your own and stop wasting our time. --Amanduhh 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:V. Lacks any sources beyond the primary source and lacks any non-trivial non-blog sources. --Quirex 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So, it's hard not to notice: This 'War On Blogs' thing, as seen on timecop's user page, is a Gay Nigger Association of America group that nominates blogs for deletion, and then converges to ensure a 'delete' vote? Have fun abusing the system, I guess. Auto movil 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - yes, your comment was TOTALLY relevant to the debate on this page. Please provide a valid reason why THIS particular article should be kept in encyclopedia, lacking reliable sources, verifiability, and failing to be a notable website. Comeon, 2million alexa? My *personal* homepage has higher alexa rating than this blog! Stay on topic, please. --timecop 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You're an avowed member of a trolling group -- i.e., a troll -- who nominates blogs for deletion under a set of pretenses that you invented yourself. This is relevant to your nominations, and to this discussion. I see included in your list of noms a high-traffic portal (i.e. Buzzflash) and a left-blog that won several awards (i.e. Sadly No). Therefore, anything you say must be taken in context. You'll present a bad-faith case for deletion, such that no neutral user can rely on your statements. But if it works and turns you on, you're welcome to play with Wiki rules as much as you like. Auto movil 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment - Maybe you have a thing for personal attacks on AFD pages, seems like something you've done it in the past. There was nothing notable about Sadly, No and I have no idea when Buzzflash was deleted, but it wasn't my nomination. So your other conspiracy theory against me as some evil blog-deleter is thrown out too. --timecop 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. →Bobby← 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry German Kid

[edit]
Angry German Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redirect to nowhere Ocatecir 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albophobia

[edit]

del hopeless neologism introduced in France (fr:Albophobie) but has absolutely no prominence in English language. The article cannot be salvaged by renaming into something else because in its shortness of a dicdef it conflates two notions: reverse racism, 9a rather controversia l topic, which deserves bettter coverage than a section in "racism") and usual inter-ethnic animosity, which presents anywhere where two different ethnoses contact, but which is not normally called "racism". `'mikkanarxi 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:Not a dictionary. This article doesn't offer anything more than a definition of a neologism, and doesn't offer any addition information or references. Jayden54 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. A search for a definition of "albophobia" on Dictionary.com turns up nothing; "albophobia dictionary" on Google turn up multiple pages with "Grandiloquent Dictionary" listings on various blogs... definitely not reliable sources. "Albophobia" doesn't yield anything on thefreedictionary.com,MSN Encarta, yourdictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster Online. B.Wind 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the nominator for the previous AFD. It came out in the discussion that this was the beginnings of a translation of the French Wikipedia article, and I withdrew the nomination, with the idea that we should wait and see what the whole article looks like. I am also somewhat dubious as to whether the final result will be useful to the English Wikipedia, but the translation is clearly not finished; in fact, it now appears that the translator was confused by my efforts to prod and then AFD the article, and has stopped. I think at the very least the article should be clearly marked as a translation in progress; it may also be time now to simply delete the stub and wait until some new translator gets interested. Brianyoumans 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Not a dictionary. WMMartin 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding credit

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of instruction manuals ElKevbo 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 don't let that put you off editing. Yomanganitalk 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restless_Boards

[edit]

Non-notable company, article written by a member of the company, tone is clear advertising. Non-notability means it can't be rewritten for acceptability. Phidauex 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From Creator - I tried to inform myself as best as possible before creating this page. I was not aware that the company needs to be "notable". There are a few minor articles published about us but having now read the rules, I realized that they may not be sufficient to show any notability. I want to mention also that I tried to stay neutral. This was not meant to be a sales point of any kind, it was more of an experiment for my first page on Wikipedia. I am a big user of Wikipedia and wanted to try a few things before starting to edit other pages. I'm sorry for any inconvinience and/or loss of time that this page might have brought on the mediators of Wikipedia. Thank you for your continued contribution to this great site. Christian Chenard-Lemire 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Don't get the idea that your article was terrible, because it wasn't. You should see some of the articles that people put up about their companies that don't even make a cursory effort to be neutral! Don't take this as a negative comment on your writing abilities, or your future career here on Wikipedia. As a general rule for notability, is that if the person/org has to add themselves, then they aren't notable. If they are really notable, someone else will add them of their own volition. Welcome to Wikipedia! Most of us make some mistakes the first few times, and we don't don't hold it against you. Phidauex 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the author of the original article: This is a personal view, but what I look for in a company article is evidence that the company is doing, or has done, something more than just carry out its business. Simply being in business is what all companies do, so isn't notable. But if you're the first company to do something important, or the best company at doing something, and can prove it, you belong here. You're in the longboard business, so what I would look for would be something like "every world champion longboarder for the past ten years has used our board", so long as this is for product-related reasons, not just by chance ( sponsorship doesn't count, of course ). Phidauex makes a good point when he says that if you're really notable, someone else will add you. Keep watching Wikipedia, and the day someone you've never heard of re-creates this article will be the day your company can say "we're a successful business". Good luck for the future. WMMartin 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrimeBlog

[edit]
CrimeBlog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a clear-cut case of WP:DICDEF. Incidentally, this is a combination of two of the worst words ever. And that 'duh' feeling about the definition. Delete, and if enough agree, Speedy delete by CSD:batshitinsane timecop 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • TransWiki - to Wiktionary which doesn't have an article. It may seem obvious to many folks, but my granpappy doesn't know what a blog is, so the phrase might confuse him. Then again, my granpappy thinks computers are magic and need to be banished to hell, so I'm not sure it'll help much. I love that guy. Also, I'll remind the above user that when citing false CSD criteria, it is desirable to make the link point somewhere as specified in WP:HowToVentFrustrationDuringAFDReview. →Bobby← 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I changed the redlink. I still think deleting this is the appropriate action, seeing as after reading blog even in simple wikipedia, one could easily figure out that a crime blog is either a blog about crime or a criminal's blog. --timecop 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot books

[edit]
Cabot books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability, no verification. All I can get from this is that there is a publishing company out there devoted to making music theory books. Diez2 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Publishers are usually notable. --- RockMFR 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some are, but not all of them. This one appears so small that the first few relevant hits are only eBay hits[35]. I've yet to find reliable sources to back up the article. Searches on Bookfinder4u.com only turn up the one book I found on Amazon and a lot of Meg Cabot. I suspect advertising from a VERY small press. They appear to sell only on eBay and badmouthing big publishers for not publishing their books with comments like: "Cabot Books being a specialist publisher, concentrates on a specific niche in the market, whereas huge outfits like Hal Leonard, Mel Bay or Music Sales Ltd like to concentrate on titles that will sell in multiples of 10,000+." (as seen in the above eBay link) is commonly a sign of a grudge of a small press. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I retract the bit about selling only on eBay, but the stores mentioned here indicate a predominantly internet marketing. Thebookplace.com indicates they don't have their books in stock and that ordering would take 1-3 weeks. This points to the place being a self-publishers. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Templeton

[edit]
David Templeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO. This is about a reporter who has not actually been the subject of any press nor has he received any awards. Diez2 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Swpb talk contribs 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urth

[edit]
Urth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is actually 2 articles. One of them is a definition of "Urth," and the other fails WP:BAND. Diez2 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually three articles - it's a meta-article consisting of stubs with the same name which are not (yet) worthy of seperate pages accessable from a disambiguation page. However, given that these stubs have been sitting for quite some time unimproved, I vote as follows:
—Swpb talk contribs 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO was presented and inserted into the article. --Coredesat 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Green

[edit]
Greg Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy CSD A7 contested. Article does not assert WP:Notability. Authorship of two non-notable books is not inherently notable. Subject does not meet WP:BIO: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Chondrite 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no idea whether the claims made on the talk page (specifically that Green is the sole author of authoritative works on cannabis cultivation) are factual or whether, if they are, the spirit of WP:BIO would be met. Since there were claims of notability on that page, I did recommend that the issue come to AfD rather than speedy deletion. --Dystopos 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be proved, though afd is right for this article. While it wasnt an autobiography it appears to me that the person who was the subject of the article made a request for the article to be created, thus delete on vanity grounds as well, SqueakBox 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very likely carefully crafted spam. --humblefool® 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE: The original assertion that Mr. Green is the only author to ever publish a book in this field is correct and true. As such, this book is very notable in circles and industries relating to the cannabis breeding. Most people in the US do not understand, and therefor fear, said subject matter, but in many countries around the world Mr. Green's work is a standout and well-respected. I, myself, am a journalist for High Times magazine, based in Manhattan, and can atest that this author's works are used consistently for research directly related to articles we publish that are read by over 1 million people worldwide.This comment unsigned by first ever edit anon user User:69.116.201.26
    • Comment "The original assertion that Mr. Green is the only author to ever publish a book in this field is correct and true." A search for "cannabis cultivation" on amazon.com quickly shows that this claim is not correct. If the author or the books are notable, then it should be easy to demonstrate using references to reliable sources. Chondrite 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE: Yes the original assertion was true. He is the only author to publish two books in those fields. If you have any experience with cannabis litrature then you would know that between 2003 and 2006 his books may have been the best selling cannabis books on Amazon, to my knowledge anyway, or should have been because they are well regarded, but Amazon is a poor choice of rating. Right now Jorge Cervantes has a new book which would be a better seller. The only other modern breeding publication would be from DJ Short, but he has not done a cultivation manual. I am not surprised that High Times references Greg Green. The author is notable and should stay. (F0xfree 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment. I am not 69.116.201.26 which is New York and coming from the person who told you that they worked for High Times magazine in NY. Assuming bad faith is not going to help the article which is what you should be doing. (F0xfree 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • CommentAs the former Washington editor for High Times, I would like to point out that several authors wrote more than one book on marijuana cultivation, especially Ed Rosenthal, who was affiliated with High Times. I think there is room for an entry here on Wikipedia for Green, but the baloney hype needs to be screened out, otherwise it is just badly crafted self-promotion.--Cberlet 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two things are very strange. 69.116.201.26 is New York with claims to be affiliated with HT. So if Simonapro is banned and is 69.116.201.26 then that is a NY entry. As you can see the IP that was attributed to Simonapro was not in NY. So I do not see how an Afc could have linked the two. That seems very wrong to me. Secondly, the claim is that Greg Green is the only author to have dedicated book on cannabis breeding/genetics and another dedicated book on cannabis cultivation. For the life of me I have looked through my book collection and online, and the statement seems to be absolutely true as far as I can tell unless you can bring up an author who has done the same. It seems exclusive to Green. Also do you remember Green's work being reviewed or cited by HT mag? (Backlit 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The internet is not geographically constrained, a person of even limited intellegence can appear to come from many places at once. Simomapro got caught as a sock-puppet due to a lack of understanding about how to not get caught as a sock-puppet(no gunna say what the mistake was though). The check-user can be relied on.
Pity you never met F0xfree, you two may have gotten along well as you have similiar points of view. Too bad F0xfree got banned from Wikipedia just an hour and 15 minutes before you arrived here, or you could have talked about the ideas you have in common. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is easy with the resources to appear to come from more than one place. I, for instance, while in Honduras, have the ability to make edits as if they come from the UK as I have (legal) access to a computer in London using simple software) so we cant discount that a user in the Czech republic could do the same with a US computer, SqueakBox 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I suggest that discussion of Simonapro's sockpuppetry would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Simonapro, and Comment that Backlit's second point constitutes original research, and for that reason would not be appropriate for inclusion in the article. The problem is that nothing seems to have been published in reliable sources about Green or his books. Since the Green Candy Press site does not include biographical information about Green, verifiable article content is limited to mentioning that Green has published two books, and so the article will never get beyond a stub. Chondrite 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are plenty of books on cannabis cultivation:
Grow Great Marijuana: An Uncomplicated Guide to Growing the World's Finest Cannabis by Logan Edwards
European Cannabis Cultivation: A Complete Growers Guide
Organic Marijuana, Soma Style: The Pleasures of Cultivating Connoisseur Cannabis (Marijuana Tips) by "Soma"
Marijuana Hydroponics by D. Storm
Marijuana Growers Insider's Guide by Frank Mel
Growing Marijuana Hydroponicaly by Jeff Mota and Tina Wright Hans
Marijuana Chemistry: Genetics, Processing & Potency by Michael Starks
Cultivating Exceptional Cannabis: An Expert Breeder Shares His Secrets (Marijuana Tips Series) by D.J. Short
Growing Extraordinary Marijuana by Adam Gottlieb and Larry Todd

etc., etc., etc., writing a couple of books does not make a person notable (unless the books are of course noteworthy in themselves). I agree with the nominator: does not meet WP:BIO. DrKiernan 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE

[edit]
XPLANE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned that deletion in light of new sources, for which, see the DRV. (The summary provided by Uncle G is particularly helpful reading.) This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog meta

[edit]
Blog meta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two problems with this one: WP:DICDEF and the fact that it's used by a total of 1 person in the whole world (the article author). No relevant google hits, no sources, no references, and a dicdef. delete. timecop 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dushintsi

[edit]

exactly 38 inhabitants according to the Bulgarian article Gwz 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Valley Mall

[edit]

This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus narrowly overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Reserves season 2006-07

[edit]
Plymouth Argyle F.C. Reserves season 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is little more than a list of fixtures and results for a RESERVE team. Wikipedia is not a news or results service. I can see no merit in this article. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's Return

[edit]

Nom - speedied once already; no changes made since last speedied; this is only a one line "article"; this could just as easily be merged in with the author's article. Rklawton 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've read the whole series of these books- it's a very well-known series. I don't even need to read the articles to remember that at least one or two of them received some very big awards. --- RockMFR 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject is notable, but this "article" is a non-article of one sentence... but I don't know which would be better, delete to create a useful redlink or redirect to Hatchet (novel) until/unless someone is willing to write more than one vague sentence about the book. B.Wind 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metrocenter Mall

[edit]

This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per precedent. Less notable mall articles have been kept. WP:V is not in my opinion a criteria for deletion; it is a criteria for improving the article. 23skidoo 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:V is the primary criterion for deletion; if there's no verifiable information, there should be no article. (But no vote.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1.4 million square foot regional mall. Notable as first two level fuve anchor mall. Edison 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have made a few edits over the past few months and questioned the last speedy delete made, putting this very process in motion. I am also the author of WP:MALL which seeks to clarify notability guidelines for the shopping mall category. Given sufficient time I can provide multiple nontrivial outside sources to further support notability for this article, as this was a unique mall to the area, and nationally, at the time of opening and more than likely garnered several newspaper articles during planning, construction and opening - but I will need to perform library research to verify.--Msr69er 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I spoke by telephone with a reference librarian at the Phoenix Public Library who told me about a newspaper clippings file they have on this mall. There are several dozen clippings going back to 1973, mainly from the Arizona Republic, including a special pull-out supplement dated September 30, 1973. In the next 48-72 hours I will be looking at this file to see what sources are the best to use.--Msr69er 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Give WP:MALL a chance, hopefully it won't be bastardised the same way the school proposals have. Silensor 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depletist

[edit]
Depletist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a neologism whose speedy deletion was contested. It has been created, listed for deletion, and deleted once before; I do not know if the new version is any more robust. I believe this fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Eron 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP- This entry should not be deleted because the word is spreading really fast and even has links to many sites that can be searched on google. Further context for this page and word will be updated ASAP.
It is also associated with Ontario College of Art and Design, a recognized post-secondary university in Toronto, Ontario. Please allow time for the posting of further context.
The spread of this word is believed by many professors to be connected to the solution of a humanitarian issue. This is a small thing that can create incredible change in the attitudes of our world.
Also, the word has been translated in a few languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, and others.
Writer and professor Robert K. Logan is a contributor to this project.
His sources and input will be posted, with the translations into different languages.
Robert K. Logan (born August 31, 1939), originally trained as a physicist, is a media ecologist. He received a BS and PhD from MIT in 1961 and 1965. After two post-doctoral appointments at University of Illinois (1965-7) and University of Toronto (1967-8) he became a physics professor in 1968 at the U of Toronto until his retirement in 2005.
Aisha285 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is more than just a definition of any word. It is a mind state that people should connect with. It is very much a current event that Wikipedia should be a part of. Spreading this knowledge is very important to shaping our world and only has positive outcomes. It's not just a definition, Many things have happened as a result of the creation of this word and this will all be posted. Aisha Sheikh 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above Keep vote was posted by user:Aisha285, who has voted to keep once already.
  • Comment I did not know that this was a poll. I apologize. I was only trying to make a comment.
comment - I think its admirable that a group is pushing this forward. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Whpq 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If it is in general use it is in general use and notable. We do not judge the concept or he word. DGG 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you arguing that the word is in general use and notable, or that if it were, we should keep it? If the former - I don't see it. If the latter...well, yeah, of course. Or am I missing your point? --TheOtherBob 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still no sources to prove it is in widespread use. And spare us the "hug a tree" rhetoric please. Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is documentation (now linked) showing it's use beyond the class. It has been used on blogs across Canada and the United States [http:del.icio.us/tags/depletist]. Although the class had a a goal to alter peoples attitudes towards the environment, the word itself is simply filling a gap in the language. As various people and institutions are forming policies around their environmental practices, it is a useful word to describe actions, and to form policy around (it would be difficult to form laws around racism or sexism if those words did not exist).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbraden (talk • contribs) — Chrisbraden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Neologism, no reliable sources to establish widespread use. Fan-1967 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is not about being "hugging a tree" it is about getting people to care about the environment even if just a little, it is about sustainability, it is about stop messing with our planet because it's already in a deep mess that MAYBE we can do something about. It's a wake up call that being a depletist is NOT okay. Just as we have neologistic words such as "bling"--a slang, they've proven themselves to stick around. Even "racism" and "sexist" are nelogistic words as they were only created in the 20th century. Like Aisha285 and Chrisbraden have noted above, this word is a state of mind, it describes actions. It's an education for others. It's history in the making. For your proof that this word is spreading rapidly, you just have to google to see. What started as 0 hits has no become 498 hits in a matter of a few months. Please, it's absolutely essential that this word is kept. Please consider keeping it. Drea84 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Drea84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see WP:NOT#SOAP. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism, admitted to be as such in the article. Usage on activist blogs does not confer the societal acceptance required by WP:NEO. The "racist"/"sexist" argument also doesn't fly with me, because those words don't have opposites, and any word created to fill that gap in our language would be a neologism as well. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Shouldn't then by all the Neologism complaints, articles such as Truthiness, invented by Steven Colbert Earlier on this year be deleted as well? When exactly do you define a word has spread? Shall it be weeks? Months? Years? By subjective standpoints, there is no ‘after’ to any sort of spreading. The article does not push for any particular viewpoint, thus the arguments that it is a trying to turn wikipedia into a soapbox doesn't apply, it is simply a documentation of a word and it's emergement usage. The fact that it has been quoted on activist blogs is not sufficient evidence to determine it's neutrality. Darthophage 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Darthophage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And as long as you mention WP:RS and WP:V, I would note that truthiness has reliable sources and verifiability in spades (namely, more than 30 references from major news organizations). --DachannienTalkContrib 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that "truthiness" was already in the Oxford English Dictionary long before Colbert thought of the word.B.Wind 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. It may be good for this word to spread, but Wikipedia is not the place to spread anything. WP documents what has already spread, it does not do the spreading. --TheOtherBob 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Now, now, everybody. Lets look at the facts. This word is becoming the object of a healthy debate, and the Deletists do have a point, but to understand the positive ramifications of this word being recognized by a notable online encyclopedia that we all use will speak volumes when this word becomes common usage. All this KEEP and DELETE is interesting, but the raw facts are that this word seems to be being used by people, it seems it is spreading fast, it was created in part by a notable author and university professor. Really, so what if a bunch of university students contributed in the creation of a word? This word should carry the same weight as the word Racist. What is really being said by deleting this entry is that Borat holds more weight than a legitimate word that is a step in the right direction to creating a sustainable future. Delete if you must, but I would then question the motives of those who delete these entries. Pea73 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Pea73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Perhaps this word should carry the same weight as the word Racist. However, the word doesn't carry the same weight as racist, and Wikipedia deals in "is," not in "should be." Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia reports on what is in the world, not on what it would consider important to a world if it were making one. We're not making a world. We're making an encyclopedia about the world. To the extent that you question the motives of those who are building the encyclopedia, I'd encourage you to assume good faith.--TheOtherBob 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You will note that, on wikipedia, the word "Racist" actually redirects to the entry on "Racism", a much broader concept. As to Borat, as long as more people have heard of him than have heard of "depletist", he will - in terms of notability, which is a primary grounds for determining what does and does not belong on wikipedia - carry more weight. Don't blame the encyclopedia; blame Western culture. - Eron 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Borat - please see WP:Pokémon test for the flaw with that argument. --DachannienTalkContrib 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all of the above. From doing a Google search there are some 495 returns, say 40 of those are unique? That seems to be enough spread of a word, especially since the geography of the hits suggests some international travel. Knowing what other "rumors" make it as content on some WP entries, I don't see why this word is causing such a concern?--Jchetner 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)— Jchetner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Danny Lilithborne 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP What's the deal, if the word is being used, as well as the idea behind it is sound enough to continue being used i don't see why it shouldn't be on here. @ least is not a Colbert word, or that elephant deal from about a year ago. there's obvious effort being put into it, as well as there's obvious spread and momentum. Wikipedia give it a rest and let them have it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.77.33 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — 74.108.77.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP Encyclopedia: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.This is an article on factual happenings and is thus valid for entry. It describes an idea as valid as any other. 70.51.144.100 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENC. --DachannienTalkContrib 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to apologize for the existence of WP:ENC, some wikipedians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with their particular definition of "encylopedia" is mentally subnormal. Kappa 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And when you ask that a new editor be spanked, you are violating WP:BITE. Eron 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Dear everyone, I signed into my account today to receive this message:

Sock puppetry

Aisha285, please be aware that sock puppetry - that is, creating and using multiple accounts in order to influence the result of a vote - violates Wikipedia policy. There is ample circumstantial evidence in the AfD vote located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depletist (second nomination) to suggest that you are creating multiple accounts to influence the result of that vote. If you have, in fact, done this, please revisit the AfD page to indicate which comments are your own posted under those multiple accounts. Thank you. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say about this, is that, I AM NOW BEING FALSELY ACCUSED. Please read this carefully:

I only put this page up to help people, not to create problems. People are also using Wikipedian terms against me such as "SPANK THIS AUTHOR" or "SALT" or "EXPUNGE." I am a new author, and my intentions have only been good. If you read the article about "Depletist" you would realize that the intentions are good ones. Hopefully this would make you realize that a person who has good interests like this, would not take steps to violate any Wikipedia rules. Creating multiple accounts is an obvious violation. Also, I should point out that I cannot sit here all day, I do have to make a living to survive daily. Anyhow, I would rather be out creating a better awareness of this word and movement, because this page shows that many people are not educated in this matter, (while of course, thankfully, some people are).

Unfortunately, there have been many rude remarks made that I do believe to be quite unfair. I did not come to wikipedia to create hatred. I came here high spirited, and have been let down. Fortunately, I realize through this, that not everyone knows this word yet. Please help humanity in this positive movement forward. I am positive that one day "depletists and depletism" and the great events that have happened around it will be recognized by everyone and prevented. Even if this article is deleted, I still thank you Wikipedia. You have only given me more incentive to keep working hard in this endeavour. Cheers. Aisha Sheikh 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Salting is not necessarily a reflection on you, merely a shorthand for "delete and protect". It's an indication that contributors, possibly including you, but certainly including other members of the "think tank", would continue to create this article, which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. SPANK THIS AUTHOR is probably inappropriate if you're a new editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Next time tag transwikied articles with {{db-transwiki}}. --Coredesat 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final (Pinyin)

[edit]
Final (Pinyin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. James084 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion

[edit]

Not notable. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction: I retract this AfD. The subject does have some historical significance even if it is not currently all that notable. --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rpg-tv

[edit]

No indication this PA knockoff meets any of our notability guidelines. Contested PROD. --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 20 November 2006 (GMT)

  • Comment. This "PA knockoff" receives thousands of hits every week, is featured on joystiq on a weekly basis and is becoming a staple read for gaming enthusiasts across the web. Delete the entry if you really want, this page is doing no harm except to inform people about the comic. The comic recently surpassed 100 strips. --Trueplayer 16:02 21 November 2006
Thousands of hits is not enough: the Alexa ranking is a puny 3,548,702. While Alexa has many problems, this indicates there is not much traffic to the webcomic; I'd also like to note that Penny Arcade, for example, is ranked at 1,706. Even if it had a lot of traffic, nothing in WP:WEB mentions that. Even if one is very generous and reads a few blog mentions on Joystiq as an instance of fulfilling the first criterion, where's the second substantial mention in the reliable independent source? And the number of strips has absolutely nothing to do with notability. --Gwern (contribs) 02:04 22 November 2006 (GMT)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Look, everybody and his cousin has a webcomic now. The entry cost to make a webcomic is very, very low - much lower than that required to get a strip into print. (And we don't even cover every print comic.) We have to draw the line somewhere or we will eventually have thousands of articles on webcomics. This webcomic does not meet WP:WEB as near as I can find. Herostratus 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, however a merge can be discussed on the talk page if needed. — CharlotteWebb 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Dream

[edit]

The recent first AfD on this subject was overturned by DRV consensus in light of new information, for which, see the DRV. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:V. Apparent single-purpose accounts disregarded as they did not show that the subject was verifiable, much less notable. --Coredesat 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of OBOT

[edit]
The Game of OBOT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes but those sports are now played around the world and are notable you can ask people almost anywhere what Basketball or Soccer is; if you asked them what OBOT they wouldn't know.--Simonkoldyk 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) -- daveyboy16 20:43, 30 November 2006[reply]
  • Comment Yes but i was not talking about basketball and football. How many people outside of a private school education has heard of Eton Fives or other such games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by daveyboy16 (talk • contribs)
Comment "Eton Fives", 11,700 ghits.
"Game of OBOT", One ghit.
Looks like a lot of folks have heard of Eton Fives, there's even a lengthy and expensive book documenting every boring detail of the subject. Documented, notable, verifiable, that's what we're looking for here. Tubezone 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not part of a string of hoaxs, and this is the first i have heard of these hoaxs. This page has been edited from school where alot of people have access to the internet. Those other hoaxes are most likely from another student using the same computer. We are serious about OBOT and would like to see it kept on wikipedia as we believe it is a good sport/game worthy of acknowlegement. many thanks J_man2211 15:39, 30 November 2006 — J_man2211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
id just like to say i have nothing to do with OBOT as youll see if you go onto the OBOT history page. Chrisboy2006 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i am sorry for what Chrisboy2006 did to the united kingdom's moto. i have already had words with him stating that that wasnt the right thing to do and hope it doesnt reflect negatively on OBOT. J_man2211 19:44, 30 November 2006
  • Keep. This game seems to me, to be quite valid. Regardless of whether or not it is a game, i think that it will be bigger. I'm sure that if an article was written about it, then it would be, also this would constitute it to stay on wikipedia. Also, im sure the people who created this page didn't intend it to 'advertise it on wikipedia, more share with the world. I suggest someone write about it in someway. User: Jackilous 21:00, 30 November 2006
  • Comment Yeah thats what we are planning on doing and probably will do. however we would love to see it on Wikipedia, especially as we feel there is a wide enough following in north of hampshire to warrent it to stay on wikipedia user: j_man2211 21:08 30 November 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 redirect. W.marsh 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZDaemon

[edit]
ZDaemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Its a source port of Doom, the article dosen't comply with the WP:SOFTWARE guideline nor with official policies WP:V or WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific, in what way does it not comply? I read WP:SOFTWARE and I disagree with your opinion, particularly when you have not specified in what way it does not comply. This equates to arresting someone saying that they stole, but you do not say what they stole or from where it was stolen. Please provide more detail for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: As I can see on the talk page that this article has had a little trouble on what exactly should be put on it and is monitored by fans of this port, please remember saying it is notable, it comply's does nothing. AfD is not a vote! Providing links to coverage by a notable website does. --Simonkoldyk 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You state that the site is monitored by fans, could you provide detailed and supporting evidence to this claim? Are you not interested in any of the articles in which you contribute? If I am a fan of Nascar, does that discount my contribution? By what authority are you to make such a claim? You say saying something is notable does not mean it is notable, yet you state the talk page is monitored by fans, does this make your claim any more notable? By what evidence do you make the claim that all contributors are fans? If you logic for deletion is subjective to the precedence of fans participating in the monitoring of a given article, then I am very concerned about what may come of this logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
Would you please be more specific? Or cite an example? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
* Comment: Sure, see like [39] is an article for Halo 2 so it would prove that Halo 2 is notable, you need to find a article from a notable website about ZDaemon. --Simonkoldyk 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GameSpy Doom Port Note that they also reference Zdoom which is nominated for deletion. You may like this reference for the Skulltag Deletion as it will serve to show how irresponsible that deletion was and why it should be restored Doom Source Ports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete. What annoys me most is the insistence by obvious fans of the game to include crufty material about the game's clans. The "Criticism" section is unsourced and unverifiable, as is much of the rest of the article. No reliable third party sources to indicate its notability either, though I'll abstain if any can be found. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per above. I'm just sick of having edit wars with people trying to get their clans link in the article. Also the whole article seems to be original research and needs to be rewrote and trimmed down. BJTalk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that an editor would be inclined to have such a subjective opinion without presenting any counter points to the contrary of what has been presented. Stating that you disagree is not notable nor verifiable. We need you to present evidence to support your claims or this situation may be used as an example to nominate many other notable articles for deletion. We must work together in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. To do otherwise is irresponsible and may draw vast consequences. As a contributing reader, I do not wish to waste time undoing such activity. We must avoid setting a negative precedence.
You state "Obvious fans" yet site no reference or proof, this does not set a good example for new contributors as you are not practicing what you preach. You should also not express how contributions make you "feel" as it has little or nothing to do with the facts, rather is shows bias due to your acknowledgement in regards to how something makes you "feel". Again, we must be careful to act in the interest of the community and set a proper example, particularly when we are held to a higher level of accountability. As we can see below, a young and very impressionable student from AZ (as per his talk) has taken to your example and represents how he "feels" here in post. We must avoid such matters. His opinion is highly subjective and rather than discussing or making reference to his opinion, he surrenders himself to simply stating how he "feels" ("I'm just sick") without presenting any supporting evidence. Nor is he open to the possibility that his issue may be entirely due to the fact that his position is incorrect or his actions are not justified. Please note how he referenced your example directly "per above". This is a real world example of how acting irresponsible can have a negative effect and open the door for biased and subjective opinions. (Please also note that rather than expressing an opinion about how I "feel" I have taken the time to cite examples of what it is I am concerned about. We must act responsibly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
Yeah, it being "original research" (his words) can't have anything to do with it. Troll elsewhere, please. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in reference to his statement that the "Whole Article" was Original Research. I found that comment interesting as he also contributed to the Article in question. Thus he was contributing "Original Content" by his own admission.
As per What is a Troll? Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user.
Please refrain from name calling. It does not serve the Wikipedia Community nor does it help address the issue at hand. Thank you :-) 76.16.70.153 (talk · contribs)
I care this much right now. You weren't commenting on his addition to the article in question, and even if you were it is irrelevant. I can't spot any of his comments that add to the OR, merely those that remove fair chunks of it. No, you were saying that he was reasoning unfairly with emotion rather than neutrality. Not only is this unfounded (he did give reasons beyond being sickened by it), but it doesn't matter. Before all of that nonsense, you basically blamed myself for emotionally corrupting this poor student. That's uncivil, and is the very definition of trolling. Keep it up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your belief that he did not contribute to the article? If so, I would be happy to provide references to said. He User:Bjweeks made statements with no references.
Regarding the influencing of a young student. I never stated that you corrupted him in any way (we continue to see assumptions dominating reason and request for clarification), rather your example of casting how you felt over what your findings were based on facts, may have contributed to his post where he posted how he felt, rather than reference facts. You are clearly not giving me the benefit of the doubt as a first response. I am quite suprised to see an Administrator being presumptious to such a degree, that he/she would resort to name calling as a first response. You did not ask for me to elaborate or to clarify the intent of my post. What is uncivil sir, is not giving the beneift of the doubt, putting words into other peoples mouths, and resorting to name calling and threating bans because you don't agree with someone. I on the other hand offered to apologize if the intent of my post was misunderstood, apologized to you personal, and continue to behave in a very civil manner.
Great now I'm a "young and very impressionable student" and "mentally unstable". This is a AFD comment page, where people express opinions about the page, I'm so sorry that I didn't post every diff I have had to revert because people keep putting clan links or every paragraph on that page that is unsourced. It is also insulting to say that I can't form my own opinions. BJTalk 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. You are young. 2. Young people are impressionable. 3. You are a student in High School.
Thank you for your apology. Opinions about the page are reasonable and should be supported by references. The Clan links were indeed sourced as they are all listed on the front page of Zdaemon.org, Zdaemon.org is listed on GameSpy and Wikipedia, thus all notable sources. Perhaps your edits were subjective in nature and required more research before deletion? Many people tend to delete links without first discussing them. It is always prudent to discuss a deletion before assuming it is irrelevant.
1/2/3 Who cares? Your comments about be have nothing to do with we are discussing and are not well founded saying all you know about me is what is on my user page. If you couldn't tell the "apology" was sarcasm and in the case of the clans, only the clans names could be sourced not if the clans were notable nor the tidbit about them. BJTalk 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you care. If my comments have nothing to do about what we are discussing, why are you replying to them? It is best to lead by example. If you post a comment in a discussion, you should do so with the anticipation that someone may reply or question its subject matter. Thank you for acknowledging that you are sarcastic and that your apology was made without sincerity. It will help myself and perhaps others in putting weight into much of what you say as it may be sarcastic or made without sincerity.
GameSpy Notable Source Please do more research in the future :-) Also, please take note to his basis for nominating this article for deletion, he is referencing a prior deletion, which, quite possible due to reference provided herein, may be been deleted without proper cause. A perfect example of my concern as it relates the effect a precedence may have on future decisions and actions on the part of contributors and editors alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
That link goes to a listing of Doom source ports. It is not an article about ZDaemon, but rather lists ZDaemon as another source port of Doom. To pass WP:V, it must have non-trivial coverage - that is, being something more than part of a simple list. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your logic states that only articles that discuss a given topic are notable? Could you elaborate please. Reasoning with your logic, if Google had a link to Zdaemon on it's front page stating that Zdaemon was a source port that you may wish examine, it would not lend any weight to the notability of Zdaemon? Many references have been provided.
And here we have an opinion being formed based on the opinion of another contributor, who's original opinion may have been based on a false precedent. Gentlepersons, I highly recommend you take notice to these concerns for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not DeleteDue to recent facts presented on pages discussion. Notable sources and presented and need to be properly addressed. If this gets deleted, then I fear that it will be used as an example and excuse for others to delete other similar articles which fall under the pardigm for which this article has been nominated for deletion for. Other Source Ports being deleted does not justify deleting other source ports. As per WP:AFD we must be careful about letting prior precedence serve as grounds for parallel actions. This could lead to anarchy as contributors make aggressively nominate articles for deletion citing like-kind articles which have already been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
Nice work Bloodshedder. It looks like that was a lot of work. Thank you for helping out here and bringing some sanity to the situation. You should request nomination as an administrator. Rather than wasting your time with name calling and casting your opinion, you used your efforts and intelligence to provide a solution. You are a great example of how an Administrator should conduct themselves. Bravo!
  • Comment: Thank you for your time everyone. It would appear that the majority is agreeing that a redirect may be the right decision moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Well if non of the source ports are notable, I don't understand why it would work if they were all just put in one page. Also they are already all listed in the page before the merging began. --Simonkoldyk 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that they aren't notable at all, they just aren't notable enough for their own articles. They still deserve to be described, plus have their articles on the Doom Wiki linked to. Bloodshedder 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct I do believe they should be mentioned; but, there is already a list of all the ports listed there with a link to a website if they have them and stuff about them; I don't see why they need another paragraph above as well. --Simonkoldyk 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sheraton hotels

[edit]
List of Sheraton hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT a collection of external links. Despite being 100% blue links, we have no articles on any hotels on this list. humblefool® 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Dan

[edit]
Reverend Dan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  1. Created by a single purpose account named "Laradio"
  2. DJ whose sole claim to fame is doing the graveyard shift on a jesuit university radio station
  3. No mention of either this show or its host on the "LA weekly" site
  4. No mention of either this show or its host found on google apart from forums and geocities yandman 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


http://laweekly.com/music/live-in-la/la-weekly-music-awards-03/9879/

Seems like a lot of bitter wikifolks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.194.96 (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arpwatch

[edit]

Fails notability, and makes no mention of exactly what Arpwatch actually does. Diez2 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Berger

[edit]
Mark Berger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this professor notable enough? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - numerous publications listed in the article (although I think the list itself is probably unnecessary) and director of a center of some sort at a major university (which may or may not be notable). Geoffrey Spear 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the subject meets WP:PROF, this appears to be a resume, and Wikipedia is not a resume service. The article could also appear to some as a memorial, something else that Wikipedia is not. The late Mark Berger is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but this is not a Wikipedia article. Scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:PROF. Just because it looks like a resumé means the article needs to be cleaned, not deleted. --Oakshade 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure he was an able academic, however his works have not had a lasting impact on the field, as shown by the lack of links to this article from the articles discussing his field of expertise. I'm not saying he didn't contribute, like Nlu I'm saying he's of insufficient notability to merit an encyclopedia article. DrKiernan 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This appears to be primarily a memorial, violating "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Iceberg3k 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fandemonium

[edit]
Fandemonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable gaming event. Ghit testing fails due to the fact that many events also have this name, though this is the first result. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "non-notable". Articles have been published in many area newspapers, and the event has been featured on television news broadcasts from ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliates.
There are no other entertainment expos named Fandemonium, therefore no naming conflict.
It is not a "gaming event" either. It is a fan convention, featuring science fiction, fantasy, horror, and anime, as well as gaming.Ogredude 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there are other events named Fandemonium, such as this Also, area news papers tend to not prove notability, due to the small area of coverage. Though if you could provide proof of coverage by a major news network that isn't just a passing mention, that would definitely help its case. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the WP:V about local newspapers not being a valid source of verifiability.Ogredude 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they weren't. I said that coverage in a local newspaper generally isn't enough to warrant notability. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless reliable source references to notability are provided. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability - This organization has had multiple articles about it published in several Idaho newspapers, including The Idaho Statesman, the Idaho Press-Tribune, and the Boise Weekly. Unfortunately, none of these newspapers keep a reliable online archive of their articles. Paper copies of the articles are available. The organization has also been featured on the news of the local CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox affiliates. It has also been reviewed twice by an official representative of Steve Jackson Games. Ogredude 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need a way to verify this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. We need to pull our paper copies of newspaper articles for citation, as none of the newspapers keep online archives. Ogredude 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset Music Group

[edit]

Page is just a bunch of pictures,nn group, someone keeps removing db and prods SkierRMH 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - assertion of notability appears to be based on a single award winning group signed to their label. However, this article would seem to indicate that they are likely a U.S. distributor. I cannot find any reasonable sources on the label itself via googling. -- Whpq 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does appear that Hatiras & Macca won a Juno Award, but we don't even have an article on them, the single was apparently on the Blow Media label, and I can't find anything they've done on Jetset (not that that alone would make Jetset notable). That leaves Jetset as an entirely nonnotable vaporware label, as far as I can tell. bikeable (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jetset Music Group is a fairly new label, with releases primarily on Vinyl. They are not a distribution company as you have stated, and they are actually becoming quite well known in the industry. Jetset Music Group is the parent company for Jetset Recordings. And as far as notability, awards do not equal success nor or they the end all be all of quality music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.157.64 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no assertion to notability that would qualify them for inclusion under WP:CORP.--Kchase T 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sewing Dragon

[edit]

Contested prod. Patent nonsense. No google hits apart from mirror sites. None of the institutions mentioned exist Nuttah68 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a lot to say about the sewing dragon. Although it's existence is not readily proven, it is still a debatable myth. Why, look at bigfoot; sure, he is more widely known, but chances are he is fake. Every "myth" (quotations because sewing dragon exists!) needs a place to start. If the sewing dragon is deleted from wikipedia's archives, no one will ever be graced to learn about it, and by the time they do, November 27th of 2008 will have already passed. But please; it may be a hoax, it may be "nonsense", and for all you know, it could be real, just like bigfoot, so give the sewing dragon a chance. The sewing dragon would give you chance if he could. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.35.70 (talk)

If you are going to delete this myth, why don't you delete other dragons, like the Chinese or Aztec dragons? There isn't any proof of those two. Yet, people still choose to believe in them. The people who believe in the Sewing Dragon should have just the same chance to express their believes. The only reason why it hasn't popped out previously is because it was only spoken of in close circles. Wikipedia is now giving the dragon it's chance to spread. Deleting this article would be an insult to those who believe in this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)

Comment - If you can provides reliable sources that can be used to verify this myth, then you will have met the criteria for article inclusion. -- Whpq 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that the article is on Wikipedia, your friends can learn about this fascinating dragon. His background is quite interesting, and now more people will be able to experience the wonders of this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)

That is not what Wikipedia is for. That is what Geocities is for. Until the myth becomes established, it has no place here. Follow the rules. --Masamage 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This myth is established, it just isn't well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NFT and WP:OR before you continue to argue this point. If you refuse to read them, I have nothing else to say. --Masamage 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This myth is plausible and there should be no need to delete it. The reasearch seems detailed enough, so I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Roche (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't for class projects, as it is not a free web host. --Coredesat 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Senior High School Band Program

[edit]
Davis Senior High School Band Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No deletion here; you may merge at your leisure. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fight Special

[edit]

Unsourced POV entry on episode of a shortlived BBC comedy show. I'm not sure if this should be deleted or reworked and merged into KYTV, but it can't stay on its own. No vote. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect KYTV. I don't think there's very much material that's suitable for merging. (Same goes for KYTellyThon and Fly on the Walls.) Demiurge 10:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 18 episodes of this show, and the pilot episode. If this page is merged into KYTV then it would follow that all the other episodes would be documented in the same way, and putting the whole lot on one page is going to create a very long entry for KYTV. I wrote a lot of information for the other two pages and was planning to do the rest of the pages for Series 1 and 2 when I have time (Series 3 to follow later). I think the KYTV pages would be a lot more useful and interesting if they continue in the existing format, or something similar. JamminBen 12:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KYTV, if necessary. There is no need for separate articles on every epsiode of a TV programme and merging will not create an unnecessarily large article. Emeraude 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am still not in favour of a merge into KYTV. Given the current amount of info on the episode pages I think that merging WILL create an unnecessarily large article. It might be better to create a "list of KYTV episodes" page with descriptions for each. This would be more consistent with other TV shows. JamminBen 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "no need for seperate articles". This is a free encyclopaedia where-by people share all knowledge that they have on just about everything known. The KYTV page has links on every episode, most red. Each show had its own set-up, its own guests, its own unique features and many people may be interested to know about elements of them without actually knowing where to start. It is down to those with some knowledge (eg. JamminBen) to reveal what it is we know. In time, infoboxes can be placed with all kinds of special features giving it a more sophisticated look. See the Only Fools & Horses individual episode style. They have entries for most of their episodes and the information from a single show in OFAH is just as relevant and suitable as that for KYTV; the point is that many articles accross Wikipedia are far shorter with much lacking information and they seem to survive with no interruption. Another thing, if it is decided to merge, will that same person remove all the links on the KYTV page? If not, will it simply not not invite other editors who stumble accross it later to start again? Take a look at any world city, any well-known event, any large Wikipedia page and go back to its first edit; see how sometimes it took months and months before it expanded, see how many are still thriving now, with dozens of editors, disputed issues on Talk etc. Without the chance, such phenomena cannot come about and it is otherwise pointless even having a free encyclopaedia. Evlekis 08:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluebird Songs

[edit]
The Bluebird Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Non notable publication with minimal distribution and life Nuttah68 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is notable because it was a significant case in which journalistic rights were violated. When Hugh Kane said he "spoke for the staff," he in turn silenced the other members on their views. This could damage the other journalists reputation in that it went against what a journalist could actually support.

Yes, this publication had a small life and distribution, but that is because of the journalistic sins committed by Hugh Kane. This article can easily show how journalistic sins can abruptly end a publication and cause several journalists to leave in disgrace.

This article should stay ~ USER: TIDAL5

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, merge seems supported, the tags for a merge have already been added if anyone wants to finish it up. W.marsh 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Rock City

[edit]
San Antonio Rock City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy, so brought here for community discussion. Herostratus 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 do think that a historical list (probably including a timeline graph) of all the display resolutions Apple has offered and when could be useful as a historical record. If anyone is interested in creating that article, ask me or another administrator if you this deleted content. —Doug Bell talk 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple computer display resolution

[edit]
Apple computer display resolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Um, who wants to research a list on all the computer displays (and their resolutions) Apple Computer makes? It could possibly be merged into Apple Computer, but it would be a long shot, so I would say delete. Diez2 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I haven't presented the information in a sensible way, but a lot of this information is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Atchius 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge is still possible, but would need further discussion. W.marsh 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States immigration debate

[edit]
United States immigration debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete this page and merge the contents into Illegal immigration to the United States. The focus of this page is on legislation proposed for the 109th Congress which is soon to be concluded. In January the 110 congress forms and the debate must start anew, and most of the wording will have to be deleted from the page. Most of the information not related to legislation is already duplicated on the Illegal immigration to the United States page, or should be on that page. Why keep a page that must be overhauled every two years, it would be better to include a section on “Illegal immigration to the United States” and keep that up-to-date. Wayoutguy 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — Wayoutguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: "Delete and merge" isn't an option; GFDL requires that some trail of authorship be maintained. Either pick "delete", or drop the nomination in favor of a merge (which can be proposed and carried out outside of AFD). Zetawoof(ζ) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have no problem with a detailed article regarding historical or current events. Articles regarding newsworthy historical issues are common and welcome. The article itself appears to be well footnoted (although I'd like to see more references at the bottom). As for the nom's suggestion that the new congress will change the debate, well...great. This article (or an improved version of it) could be a good first look at where this debate has come from and where it's currently at -- almost the definition of living history, yes? Lacking an AfD argument regarding verifiability or original research (neither of which seem to apply), I don't see what the problem is with this article. -Markeer 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Markeer. This debate has been in play since 2004, possible 2001 (see article), and will continue. Congressional cycling doesn't stop it. If there was a substantive break in the content, as opposed to new legislation, it would merit moving, not deleting this article. I'd love to see early 20th century US Immigration Debate one day.--Carwil 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: The underlying issue is illegal immigration. What congress intends to do about illegal immigration should be included in that article. Seems to me that a page titled "united states immigration debate" is just an excuse for wikipedians to debate themselves, and wikipedia is not a forum for debates. Dullfig 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhat the US congress intends to do in each sesion is notable as history. DGG 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dullfig. WMMartin 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farraboya

[edit]
Farraboya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod removed on article on website that does not assert notability and would seem to fail WP:WEB Daniel Case 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kchase T 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Van Corteza

[edit]
Lee Van Corteza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion contested at WP:DRV and brought here for consideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the amount of money he earns is a factor. WP:BIO does not specify a minimum income to meet notability guidelines. And in just googling through google news, there's lots of articles about him such as this and this which would seem to indicate multiple independent coverage. -- Whpq 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - $2500 may not be "professional" enough for some people, but in the Philippines it's a big sum of money; not many Filipinos can earn that much money in less than a year, even more so in a month or even a day (just as Lee Van did in this contest). --- Tito Pao 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - joining professional international pool events makes a player considered professional. the last of which, was the 2006 World Pool Championships.--RebSkii 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Several participations at the highest level in his sport, even reaching top 32. Also winning several gold and other medals at big sports events. The amount of money he earns in a specific year is not a factor on WP:BIO which he meets in more than one guidelines. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Please see the references I added, the latter establishing that Corteza is ranked in the 188th slot in world standings by the international governing body of billiards. Meets WP:BIO. Specifically, the standard for "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors," as well as being a person who has been "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person," considering both the references in the article and multiple Filipino newpspaper articles found through Google news.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first speedy deletion was probably warranted, the second one wasn't. The person seems to meet the notability guidelines, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gold medalist at the Southeast Asian Games. --Howard the Duck 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has beed added to Philippine notice board. --Howard the Duck 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if only because the keeps are so hesitant. Sourcing is in order. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Babes

[edit]
Asian Babes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Porn magazine that has no notability and no verification. All I can figure out from here is that this magazing displays women of several ethnicities. Big whoop. Diez2 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earstroke

[edit]

Not notable online reocrd label/store/download site with 254 Unique Google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Slappy

[edit]

Contested prod: Non-notable game invented in school during band practice one day. No references, WP:NFT, etc. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds maccabi

[edit]
Leeds maccabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Under-15s football club. Fails WP:CORP by being far short of the requirement that they be a senior team in levels 1-10 of the English football league system. Previously prodded but prod was removed. Qwghlm 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felicitation

[edit]
Felicitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nonsense "definition" of a real word, not an encyclopedic topic. Russ (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Seconds of Love

[edit]

2nd nomination: Disputed prod. Can't speedy because last nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Seconds of Love) was speedied before the AfD could close. Anyway, this fails WP:BAND. NOTE: Please do not speedy delete, please vote delete or keep. Diez2 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. In cases of living persons the question of reliable sources is paramount. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scherf

[edit]
Steve Scherf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article appears to be non-notable with fewer than 1,000 ghits total. The page is unsourced and several attempts to source it have failed due to a lack of reliable sources. Furthermore, the page has become a magnet for disruption as one or more editors, and/or sockpuppets, have continously attempted to add unsourced defamatory material which could result legal liability for wikipedia. In short, there is simply no way that the presence of this article justifies the disruption and potential liability it represents. The best thing for the project is to delete this page. Doc Tropics 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't know where your motivies are; but, we don't delete articles here just so that its not a magnet for disruption. Cnet's News.com [42] is notable enough for me. --Simonkoldyk 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The link you listed provides a long, detailed article about Gracenote, but only 2 very brief mentions of Steve Scherf, one of which refers to him as a "helpful buddy". My motive is to remove an article with limited encyclopedic content. "Helpful buddy" seems to represent the upper limit of notability; a rather low threshold for inclusion. Doc Tropics 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good point, delete per above. --Simonkoldyk 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doc asked me to take a peek, and nothing I see in the article at this time seems to justify inclusion. I don't think that "pontential liability" is a good reason to delete a page-- but "non-notability" certainly is. --Alecmconroy 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - As one of the editors who has been trying to help improve the article, I agree with Doc Tropics. Oh, and I think WP:LEGAL does give us grounds for deletion over liability. The Kinslayer 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well.. let me clarify: potential "potential liability" isn't good grounds. Actual "potential liability" is. :) That was a weird sentence, I wonder if it makes any sense to anyone but me? --Alecmconroy 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think liability already includes the concept that litigation may not follow even when there are good grounds for it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If we really and truly are doing something wrong under tort law and we could be liable, then it's a valid reason, regardless of the actual probability of a lawsuit occurring. If, however, there's merely a concern that maybe, possibly, we might be doing something wrong or that there might be a potential someone could accuse us of doing something wrong, then don't use that as a pre-emptive reason to try and fix something that verywell might not be broken. But, that whole debate is moot here, since there's ample reason for deletion regardless. --Alecmconroy 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason the man is notable is because he is in charge of Gracenote. This article about him was a very short stub until recent attempts to continue an edit war started on an article about his company. Let's keep the edit war confined to the article on Gracenote and the associated request for mediation. If the Gracenote edit war ever dies down and an acceptable version is hammered out, then perhaps we can see if he is notable for anything else besides Gracenote and if an article longer then 3 sentences can be written about him personally. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a review of the pages indexed by Google (of which, only about 330 are unique—Google's hit estimates are usually high) doesn't indicate any articles focusing on Scherf, just on his companies. Notability guidelines recommend multiple, independent reviews whose primary subject is the individual. While Scherf's CDDB and Gracenote contributions may just border on being "part of the enduring historical record in [his] specific field" (see WP:BIO), most of his notability is covered in the company articles and, if deemed notable enough, possibly a redirect could be used. Still, I lean primarily toward a deletion, since someone doing a Wikipedia search for him will find him in those articles anyway. As a final note, it might be interesting to observe that almost half of the unique Google hits (about 150 of the 330) relate to a specific news story, as evidenced in this Google search. Dallben 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doc Tropics consulted me about what to do and I recommended this nomination. The article is at most a low-borderline candidate for inclusion and the page has been target of repeated attacks. The subject has requested deletion and we might as well respect the request. This isn't George W. Bush or Oprah Winfrey. DurovaCharge! 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to either CDDB or Gracenote. BTW, it's interesting that the IP address which created this article is from Gracenote. :-) bogdan 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only valid reason for deletion cited by the nom is lack of notability determined by google hits. However our notability policy states, notability can be determined if (as one example)
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Then read 2004 World Technology Awards where it says
Also 1000 ghits is notable for a businessman. Its not like we're talking about a member of the shoiwbiz industry, 1000 websites talking about the owner of a company certainly passes the ghit test in my mind.  Glen  03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, the subject of the article is far more notable than many subjects here on Wikipedia. Just for his creation of CDDB and the huge controversy surrounding it would be sufficient, but also his company Gracenote is a substantial current player in the digital music scene. Second, it doesn't bloody matter what the subject of the article wants. This isn't about his wishes. And he does not make any assertion of his own non-notability. Quite the opposite; He asserts that he is SO notable that the article would be a vandal target. If we cave in to this, what else will we cave in to? The integrity of Wikipedia depends on being independent of the wishes of its subjects.--BenBurch 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly and obviously notable, and BenBurch is right, his desires aren't at all relevant as long as the article is kept to standards of biography of living persons. Unfocused 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The last four users appear to have ulterior motives, as one of them has already taunted user Scherf on his talk page. They were almost certainly brought here by today's slashdot activity and may be attempting to interfere with the process of deletion out of malice. That an article may be a target for vandalism seems a very poor reason indeed for judging it noteworthy. This person does not appear exceptionally noteworthy otherwise. Also, there may be legal problems here, per other user's comments above. At most it should link to the Gracenote article. Winecellar 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — Winecellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. In fact, the only edits from this account are to this page Glen 05:38, December 4, 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a lurker, and prefer to not edit. This debate caught my notice, however, and I see no reason why I should not have the right to voice my opinion here. Winecellar 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The only vague assertion of notability comes from a computer company he is involved in, and a minor scandal about its sale. After existing for over 2 years, this "article" consists of only 6 sentences. Don't "clearly and obviously" notable subjects normally have more than 6 sentences, especially after that period of time? If he is so inherently controversial, where are the huge numbers of allegations and citations that such things involve? There is simply not enough verifiable material to support an article on this subject. Doc Tropics 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not imply a long article. In fact, articles should be as short as possible. --BenBurch 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can trim all the articles down to 6 sentences, we'll be in great shape...think of the savings in bandwidth : ) Doc Tropics 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above deletion comments. I agree that it appears many of the comments have been motivated out of malice. This seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia of being a complete and unbiased source of information. Siggy123 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)— Siggy123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to all four "keep" comments that appeared just after a slashdot story linked to this article. I find it highly suspect that there were no "keep" arguments here until that story appeared. Yes, only one of the four taunted the subject of the article, but their common vote and contemporaneous nature of the votes are suspicious. Winecellar 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above deletion comments. Paulquinn00 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)— Paulquinn00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. barnamink And yeah Doc Tropics before you point it out, I have few edits, but I am a heavy Wikipedia user, not a troll. As such I'm interested in having factual and unbiased content.— Barnamink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep per Glen. The amount of controversy over this guy should make clear that it's not just his company that's making news, he personally is doing so as well. Wikipedia should therefore have an entry on the fellow. Philip (Respond?) 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The presence of SPA tags appended to the comments of new contributors is not an attempt to discount their comments, nor does it imply trolling or other improper behaviour. These tags are widely used as a service to the closing admin, to provide them with background information potentially relevant to the discussion. I felt it was appropriate to use them here, despite the fact that the new contributors are supporting my nom of this article. Thanks for participating in the discussion; I hope you stay and make further contributions to WP. --Doc Tropics 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A check user on these new editors might be informative.--BenBurch 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And completely in violation of WP:AGF. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Monaghan

[edit]
John Monaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Autobiography-does not belong on wikipedia - WK:NN Renrenren 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) User is editing his own page. Only link is to his personal website. His restoration initiative described on his website is interesting, but does not warrant a personal page on wikipedia. --Renrenren 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear COI issue. Even of written by someone else, not notable in any real sense. Notabilty seems to be asserted by the "Certificate of Environmental Citizenship" award - I don't know, but that doesn't sound very exclusive to me. Emeraude 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

[edit]
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete I am the original author of this article (HanleyBri), and was a founding elder of this denomination. The WPCUS was discontinued approximately in 2010 - with two ministers and myself going into the RPCNA and another minister going into the Hanover Presbytery. I recommend this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanleyBri (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. According to its webpage, it has five congregations. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could find no independent references to substantiate the notability of this splinter group of 5 congregations established this year. Their church magazine and website did not state their membership totals or provide other evidence they were important enough to have an article about their new denomination. Wikipedia is not for purposes of advertising or promoting a new enterprise which has not otherwise achieved importance and notability. Edison 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Continuing groups like this one are an active subject in many denominations (seeWikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism for one I'm more familiar with). I didn't know the Presbyterians were having the same debates, but based on the Anglican precedent I think this one should stay. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. Now maybe if tehre were something in the article explaining why they split off and if it was over something juicy it could stay but as it is, nope. Otto4711 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does include that information, for those able to read between the lines.
      • 'They proclaim creationism within the space of six normal length 24 hour days. '
      • 'They affirm male leadership reflected in ordination to church office.'
The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) doesn't require a belief in Young Earth Creationism, ordains women, and in general is a mainline liberal denomination. These folks reject all of that and seem closer to Scotland's Wee Frees. [forgot to sign!] -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles shouldn't require readers to read anything other than the lines. An article that keeps its information between the lines is useless. If there were verifiable sources that explained the history of what I'm assuming is some sort of schism between this group and the main body of the church, then that would be potentially a good article. Otto4711 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I said in a similar AfD, we either delete all religious orders/ groups or we keep all -- the only way to demonstrate that Wikipedia is secular and not religiously biased Alf photoman 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought experiment: Let's say two geographically remote, nondenominationl tiny churches of little worldly significance come together to form a group which they call Tiny Churches of North America. This group is established to restore the purity of the faith. It never gets any press coverage, never grows, and peters out after 20 years. Is it worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia at the beginning of its existence? At the end? I'd say no on both counts. What if it had five small churches? --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not talking about small non-demoninational churches uniting here, but a separation from a large and well-established body. This isn't just about the Westminster Presbyterians, or about Presbyterians. The same sort of separation is happening throughout American protestantism, and (at least in Anglican circles) worldwide. I'm arguing for keeping this article because it's illustrative of the larger phenomenon. (BTW, we do seem to have a large number of articles on various "Popes" who claim that they're the real Roman Catholic Church. I don't recall AfD discussions about them, but maybe I'm just too new.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which large and well-established body did they separate from? As far as I can tell, they split off from another small group. I agree with you about documenting the phenomenon of schisms, but I don't think it follows that every minor split need be given its own page. Some just aren't that notable or even footnotable (see WP:N). As for the "real" popes, some are notable and others aren't. If I claimed to be pope, I don't think I'd deserve a page. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that it is not a question of numbers but a question of permanence. Take any denomination and they could disappear in 20 years and be just a footnote in history -- yet there will be a footnote and a good encyclopedia has an explanation for these footnotes Alf photoman 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This article neither asserts its own notability nor does it seem that substantive, verifiable information from independent reliable sources is available. It certainly fails the Google test. A Presbyterian Church History professor has the most substantive reference I could find on his blog. Still, while I wouldn't object to this denomination showing up in the context of a larger article, it doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own page. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not assert notability. Weak keep as notability seems to have been established below. Chondrite
  • 'Keep per AlfDGG 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory and should not have an article for every single religious denomination, sect, or splinter group in existance, regardless of notability. Excluding non-notable religious organizations is in no way evidence that Wikipedia is non-secular. Including non-notable organizations would provide evidence only that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. The individual non-notable groups may or may not be part of a larger trend, but the trend itself, if it is sufficiently notable, is properly documented in an article about the trend rather than a lot of articles about non-notable organizations. Chondrite 09:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This new denomination was reported in the Banner of Truth magazine in 2006 and has representation in five states in the Union. Also of interest is that international discussions with groups in England and Australia are on their way. Mind you this is not just five congregation - but this is a denomination which have locked arms together. In fact it is the only full subscription denomination that I know of in the United States and the only American Presbyterian denomination that has a substitution fund for it's ministers. -- Note: It was commented that we are like the Wee Frees - however we are more like The Wee Wee Frees. HanleyBri | Talk 9:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Non-trivial discussion in Banner of Truth would help to establish notability (but the guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources). Banner of Truth issues for 2006 do not seem to be available online. Can you provide a quote from the article showing that coverage is non-trivial? -- Chondrite 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." [Banner of Truth, April Issue, page 14] Note: We were also mentioned in the British Church Newspaper on January 3rd 2006. -- HanleyBri 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that these independent sources can be verified, I am changing my opinion from delete to weak keep. Chondrite 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HanleyBri, I am not yet convinced. Re international discussions: the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and future, potential significance is not a factor in current significance. Re having churches "in five states of the Union": I see only four states listed on the denomination's webpage, but even then, since there are only five congregations total, that they are in four or five states doesn't seem particularly notable. As for the quote, I don't think two sentences that merely state the existence of the denomination qualifies as non-trivial coverage. What did the British Church Newspaper have to say? This is an American denomination; did any American publications take note of the WPCUS? What is a "substitution fund" and why does it make the WPCUS notable? --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: 'The WPCUS is concerned at the spread of liberal teaching (such as Federal Vision theology) within Presbyterianism in the USA. Federal Vision theology questions doctrines such as Justification by Faith, and the Perseverance of the Saints. In the event of various USA presbyterian groupings failing to deal firmly with such liberalizing trends, the WPCUS could well prove to be a new home for individual Presbyterian churches and minister who are unhappy with the stance taken by their own denominations.' As to your question regarding five states; we plan to have a congregation in Delaware in short order. As to your question on a substitution fund, sorry I meant to write Sustentation fund. It's a means of congregations joining together financially and there is an entire history of it's use from Charles the Second of England and its continued use. You will find a partial mention under the Free Church of Scotland (1843-1900)/ Under Finances -- HanleyBri 6:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have studied the ferment and churn of British and North American Presbyterianism for almost 40 years. Splitting, formation, and merging of denominations of various sizes is an important part of that history. Many small groups have come existence for a brief time but have lasting influence upon the English speaking Presbyterian and Reformed landscape. For example, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) came into existence in 1965, and disappeared in 1982 when they were received in to the larger Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The RPCES was itself a merger of elements from the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA). Though the RPCES remained a denomination for only 17 years, it is indisputable they have a continuing influence upon the PCA. Their brief history is essential to understanding American Presbyterianism.
    I’m a minister of the denomination from which some of the WPCUS congregations come, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Yet, I recognize the WPCUS has taken an unique confessional position, reaffirming the original version not only of the Westminster Standards but also the original form of government and worship approved in England and Scotland in the 1640's. In this, they offer the possibility of union with other like minded groups on the basis of historic confessional Presbyterianism. Their similarity to older existing Scottish and Irish denominations also makes them notable. Whatever their future may be, their efforts should be noted by Wikipedia if it is to be a reliable and useful reference tool. Jglennferrell 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)J. Glenn Ferrell[reply]
The point of WP:Notability is that any subject of sufficient modern or historical importance to be included in this encyclopedia will have received coverage by multiple independent sources. Chondrite 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this Notability thing fairly new? I've been editing on Wikipedia now and then for nearly two years, and have come across loads of instances of historical and present-day individual churches and church buildings (let alone denominations) having an article on Wikipedia, without anyone objecting. I'm starting to wonder whether there is a complete change of atmosphere on Wikipedia, with nowhere near the level of freedom there once was. It seems to be getting much more like government and corporations in the way people are trying to patrol/control it. Not the friendly place it once was! On looking at the Notability page I see that it is heavily disputed, and personally I often go to Wikipedia for information I can't find readily elsewhere. And where would Notability leave articles about long-forgotten people who were very well known in their day but who are only covered in books, not on the net! This is the sort of thing Wikipedia is ideal for. Give Wikipedia back to the people, and stop the stuffy academic types controlling it!
--PeterR 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)--PeterR 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper, so there is room for many subjects that would not be covered in a traditional encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory, so some criteria for inclusion need to be met. Removal of articles on non-notable subjects is an important function. The existance of similar articles on non-notable subjects is not a reason to include any article. Although details are disputed, there seems to be a broad consensus (as reflected in the various notability guidelines) that coverage by multiple independent sources is a fundamental criterion for inclusion. Quoting Jimbo : "It's all about whether we can write a proper article with reliable third party sources and no original research." [43] There is no requirement that sources be available online. Chondrite 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. We're not here to predict the future, so whether this denomination grows or shrinks is of no concern. What I can't work out is whether it's notable or not. Is there an article for "assorted small fundamentalist sects arising by schism from Presbyterianism" ? If there is, we have an obvious course of action. If not, I'm not sure. WMMartin 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sergent

[edit]

Non-notable and would need major amounts of cleanup besides. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. A google search confirms both the person and the technique the article claims he is associated with - however, I was unable to verify the link for this critical claim. Once the claim is verified, my vote will change to keep. --Sigma 7 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search for Sergent "Open Sandwich Technique" returns 2 results; one of them is the page under AfD, the other doesn't make any sort of link between them; therefore, the claim is probably false. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otakukin

[edit]
Otakukin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An original research soapbox article for a small self proclaimed demographic which has no reliable sources for verifiability or notability. NeoFreak 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuctionSHARK

[edit]

del unreferenced promo. `'mikkanarxi 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damsel Nymph

[edit]
Damsel Nymph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Article seems to present itself as being about a creature, but details information about sport fishing and how to use the insect as bait. Thoroughly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately, no one has suggested how it might be verifiable (Google is apparently out), and so it's a clear WP:V/WP:NOR case unless someone recreates it with good references (not to mention a good claim to notability). Sandstein 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game set

[edit]
Game set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a term in a series of video games. Other than a mention in an unsourced section of a Wikipedia article and matching Wikipedia mirrors, a Google search finds no references to the term matching the usage discussed in the article (most of the 201 unique hits use "game set" as a synonym to Video game console) [48]. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. Allen3 talk 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just a phrase. Not very significant, and hardly something worthy of an entire article. -- Whpq 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey carver

[edit]
Corey carver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a biography of a "backyard wrestler". There are no sources indicating his notability (other than his own web page, which doesn't count anyway). From contested prod: 62 Ghits for "Corey Carver"+wrestling (17 "unique") and initial results for Corz+wrestling are mostly submissions by Corz. ... discospinster talk 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a wwrestling league he made up himself and appeares to currently be stagin in his schoolyard. -- Whpq 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DDeleTe Jumping off the roof of a garage onto a matress and a pudgy friend does not confer notability. Caknuck 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, backyard wrestling by underage amateurs = inherently NN. Probably qualifies for speedy A7, founding a NN teen wrestling fed isn't much of a notability assertion. Tubezone 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In answer to Whpq, this is a wrestling group corey got up from the group and built up himself. They used to hold shows in the schoolyard, however now they perform in a professional wrestling ring infront of crowds of over 100 people, quite a big name in North West British wrestling. Ad caknuck, Who said he jumps off a garage onto a mattrass? Tubezone, well, Amateur is incorrect, he has been professionally trained and is a professional himself. And if NN stands for No-Name, come up to the north west of England and ask them what RWL is. And underage? Incorrect, in England there is NO limits to become a wrestler unlike in USA/canada. Thank you.Indigoviolent 19:08, 4th December 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - Give this article the Corey's signature "Gunn Slinger into cross-knee backbreaker" followed by his "Double Footed Stomp". This is a hoax of some sort. Even his own website doesn't make a case for notability. His manager, Spyke, is a cartoon character! Glendoremus 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indigoviolent is the creator of the page. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." DrKiernan 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Smash Bros. series NPSs

[edit]
List of Super Smash Bros. series NPSs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article appears to be completely original research and is also completely unverifiable by reliable sources. I prodded it but the prod was removed by a new user who didn't give a very convincing reason why it shouldn't be deleted ("Well, it said on it that it shouldn't be replaced..."). Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. This is another one of those strength of argument debates. It's important that merely pointing at "notability," and claiming that is existent can't exactly merit an article. Even more so, it is crucial to understand that if something doesn't have any coverage but made by a notable company, it belongs on the companies page. Unless, something can bring forth reason for a separate article, there is nothing for this to merit it's own article. Yanksox 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhD (manhwa)

[edit]
PhD (manhwa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable comics. Doond 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The San Diego Public Library: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:AMH-LxRrO90J:www.sandiego.gov/public-library/pdf/newya0806.pdf+PhD+Phantasy+Degree&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=49
The Ossining Public Library (New York): http://www.ossininglibrary.org/teens/series.aspx.
Anime News Network: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=4900
Internet Book Database of Fiction: http://www.ibdof.com/IBDOF-book-detailedview.php?book_id=28909
School Library Journal: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6312459.html
Newsrama: http://www.newsarama.com/marketreport/apr06charts.html
The other sites are mostly online bookstores, personal blogs and manga/anime forums.
By the way, check out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Hunter . Just thought I'd let you guys know.
Doberdog 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is excellent research. What it seems to boil down to in regard to establishing notability:
  • according to Newsarama.com that PhD volume I is estimated to have sold 1000 copies in April 2006, placing it at #100 in the list of "APRIL 2006 Top 100 Trade Paperback orders (estimates) from Diamond".
  • It is included among School Library Journal's "Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers", but this is a trivial mention.
See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Hunter seems to have been based on google hits and notability of publisher, and that article should probably be renominated for deletion.
See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7 "Plot summaries." The article consists entirely of Original research. Excluding the original research and rewriting the article based only on verified published works would reduce the article to a stub.
--Chondrite 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Thanks. With reagards to your comments:
I included the public school library listings to gauge how "Phd: Phantasy Degree" would fare against Wikipedia's threshold standards regarding availability in libraries {"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Threshold_standards ).
I think the problem of "Phd: Phantasy Degree" regarding plot summary has less to do with "original research", since the books themselves are the sources provided the author of the "Phd: Phantasy Degree" page included the ISBN number of said book. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources . Based on your comment, your argument would have been "Phd: Phantasy Degree" has no impact or historical significance to speak of to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.
I included to the "Dragon Hunter" deletion page to show that Doond's metholodogy regarding criterias for non-notability (google hits) is dubious at best but I suppose you know that already. Of course, if there was a "Phd: Phantasy Degree" article or review out there in a legitimate / reputable webiste...particularly a manhwa / manga / comic book / Korean pop culture website...then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Doberdog 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Is it just me...or are we the only ones arguing about this?
Quite possibly. I suspect many of the pages about this manga would be in Korean, and the rest hard to find because there are a lot of ways to spell the title. I'm very comfortable relying on publication by Tokyopop in deciding to keep. They are the equivalent of a DC or a Marvel, any of whose titles or characters I'd be comfortable including without objection. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reader unfamiliar with the subject, it is not clear to me whether the article is a straightforward description of the primary source (the work being described), or whether it includes original thought (interpretation/analysis). A reliable secondary source is preferable.
  • With respect to WP:NOT, my argument is that the article does not contain real-world context or sourced analysis, does not mention the work's achievments, does not attempt to describe the work's impact or historical significance, and is only a description of the work's plot and characters.
  • I disagree that any publisher automatically confers notability. Wikipedia is not a directory (e.g., of otherwise non-notable works that have been published by notable publishers). Each article must stand on it's own. "The primary criterion for notability, that applies in all fields, is that an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." See also: User:Uncle_G/On_notability.
--Chondrite 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly argree this article needs improvement, however, I can't understand a call for deletion. You may not consider the publisher a factor in notability, but when it comes to comic books and manga I do. Why? Because it's obvious to me that almost anything a Marvel, DC, or Tokyopop does is notable. Just like anything J. K. Rowling or Steven King writes is notable. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be missing the point of WP:Notability, particularly that "notabiity is not subjective." Works of very notable authors (such as the ones you mentioned) are almost guaranteed to receive independent coverage, and that coverage is what establishes notability. The only way to write a good encyclopedia article on any subject is to base that article on multiple independent sources. In this particular case, PhD (manhwa) is written from an in-universe perspective, and it will not be possible to rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective without reliance on third-party sources (that do not seem to exist). Chondrite 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that people write about something makes it notable is itself relying on a subjective judgement, so, no, I don't concur with your opinion since it seems inherently contradictory. You'd be much better off if you didn't try to make the argument that your reasoning wasn't subjective. Certainly not convincing in this case, where I'm saying notability comes through association (and you can't deny that people do write about Tokyopop or their other Manga). Now if you want to say "there should be some third party sources" well, that is itself a valid concern, though to me, I don't feel it is quite much of a problem. I believe it's important to look at the actual source first when it comes to things like the content of a book. The interpretation, impact, meaning, yes, that's third-party stuff (barring the rare director's commentary), but if you want to write about a book, you should be looking at the book. Or movie. Or TV series. This can be a fine line to walk, but hopefully you at least recognize the value of reading/viewing a given subject of an article. It's one thing to not expect people to come measure your shoe. It's another to not expect them to read a book. FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The verifiable fact that multiple, independent, third-party sources have written about a subject in a non-trival way is not subjective. Your argument does not seem to be that the subject of PhD (manhwa) is notable, but rather seems to be that it does not need to be notable. This argument does not address the reason given for AfD nomination, nor is it consistent with Wikipedia policy or guideline. My opinion is unchanged: the article does not assert the notability of the subject and should be deleted. -- Chondrite 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something is based off verifiable facts does not make the idea or even the perception of those sources as valuable in determining anything any less subjective. Even saying "This needs to be notable" is itself a subjective argument. This does not mean you don't have a good point, it means you are ruining it by trying to insist you're not being subjective when you clearly are. And you're wrong about my argument. I'm saying that I believe it is notable based on its publisher, and to overcome that you'd have to make an argument as to why it is not. You haven't done so. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Self-help. Actually, it was not all that clear what the result was, looks like AfD also doesn't know what to do with this. At any rate, it has many incoming links, but no reliable sources, and those wishing to keep the article haven't really addressed any pertinent points of policy. Under these circumstances, a redirect is probably the best (and most consensual) option, until the article is recreated with better sourcing. Sandstein 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal development

[edit]
Personal development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had originally deleted this on expired prod, but there are more than 100 incoming links here and I felt uncomfortable about the prod rationale, which was "The only way to expand this might by copyvio of motivational self-help books." Frankly, I don't know what to do with it. This is procedural, I abstain. - crz crztalk 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A totally appropriate site, acting as a disam page. The N and V are in the links, which is enough for this sort of composite, especially considering the incominglinks mentioned by Crz, DGG 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The amount of linkspam that comes in here is unreal, and as the field has little in the way of legitimate scholarship or peer view, adding reputable references would be well-nigh impossible. CRCulver 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personal development tends to be a new branch in psychology. It is different form self help. As I understand it, personal development is the aim and self-help is one of the means to obtain it.Dl.goe 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two users pronounced only on Talk:Personal_development#Proposed_deletion. I copy their oppinion here:

  1. Against deletion The successful growth of category:personal development surely indicates the importance of this topic to Wikipedia. There must surely be enough information held in these articles to form a basis for a decent article on the subject. I have made a start by combining what seems to be the best of what was there before. --Vince 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Against deletion Personal Development is a real phenomenon and separate or distinct to varying extents from both the self-help movement and psychotherapy/counselling arenas. It could also be useful as the current category page also seems to be used as DMOZ-style ad page for the multiplicity of commercially-inspired PD "movements" and this page would help clarify what's what if written up well. It has been on my list to edit for some time "when getting round to it". MarkThomas 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge possible, but not really seeing a definitive consensus for that here. W.marsh 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidumper.org

[edit]
Wikidumper.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable. Although mentioned by the Associated Press, the site doesn't have multiple non-trivial sources. Interiot 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment From the AP article:

"Archive.org isn't the only site trying to save the ever-changing Web. Wikipedia.com, which constantly regurgitates itself with user-inputted data, is now being watched by wikidumper.blogsot.com.

"Any information not truthful enough to make it into Wikipedia is probably dubious twice over, but Wikidumper helps provide some oversight to the editors of Wikipedia, who can take down an entry for any number of reasons." Gretnagod 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Swpb talk contribs 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Yanksox. hateless 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobby and Crystallina. Sandstein 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even when I like the idea a lot (and already subscribe to their RSS feed). This is more of project space material, regrettably, likely not famous enough yet to warrant an article space article. I don't mind it if someone recreates it later when there's no question about this thing's notability, but I'm sceptical on whether or not it ever will get there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, the last thing we need is someone having a proof that we are biased against our critics Alf photoman 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia's numerous critics will find bias no matter what, because that critics do. We should be concerned with enforcing Wikipedia's consensus-built policies consistently, rather than with allowing external criticisms to dictate the actions of the community. IMO, this is a very weak arguement against deletion. —Swpb talk contribs 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what exactly is "critical" about Wikidumper anyway? It's not like they have an agenda of "look at all these valid and well-sourced articles that they've unjustly deleted"; they publish just about everything that may be deleted later (ranging from blatant BJAODN material to little-known topics). I'd be a little bit hesitant to lump them among critical sites; at best they're doing a service to the community, at worst they're just making people say "look at that ridiculous stuff they published - but good thing it looks like they deleted it." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can it be said that WikiDumper is non-notable if it has 24,600 Google hits and 39 articles in Google news? Isn't this objective evidence that it is notable? November7 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recently emerged as notable. Three more references by reliable sources, CNETUSA TodayAssociated Press, added to article. Passes WP:WEB --Oakshade 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we have a passing mention in an AP article about a different site, republished by other news organisations (already discussed above) and a mention in a newspaper-run blog. I still think this is project space material at best... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Yanksox. If not Merge than Keep. It was inspired by Wikipedia in a way, and its purpose is not to boycott Wikipedia (at least not that I can tell). Seems notable enough. -WarthogDemon 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AP is good enough, and it looks like extreme bias to delete a site that might reflec t critically upon our own decisions here. DGG 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clifford A. Pickover.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A passing mention in an AP article about another subject doesn't meet "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis added); the content of the site isn't relevant, it doesn't matter if it's critical of Wikipedia. Also, block the nominator for AfDing his article in the same edit as his creation of it, and for writing an edit counter that doesn't work because enwiki's not replicated, and for some reason isn't recognizing my opt-in for commons, even though I clearly did it here, and for changing the graphs (which I can't see for myself on Commons) from line graphs to solid graphs, which are ugly. --Rory096 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least we agree on the deletion reason. Phew, okay: Not sure what's wrong with the opt-in, but I've manually fixed yours. Enwiki replication isn't my doing, the toolserver admins (River/Kate and DaBpunkt) are at the controls on that one. And I've fixed the solid graphs just now. So does anybody else want to make feature requests while calling for a blocking? :) --Interiot 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but now I'd like to know - what is up with AfDing your own article in the same edit you created it? —Swpb talk contribs 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be obvious, but if it's really necessary to dissect the frog... I'm not the only one who recognized the irony in AfDing a site that rescues articles slated for deletion. [49] Nonetheless, this isn't a charade... I wrote the best article I could, it's truthful as far as I know, and my nomination is sincere. [50] While I didn't intend to take up so many people's time considering the AfD, what's done is done, not everybody agrees with me, and I think the AfD should be evaluated only on its merits since so many people have weighed in. --Interiot 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No personal offense meant, but this whole thing smacks of WP:POINT to me. The author even included "In an interesting twist of fate, this article has been marked for deletion form the Wikipedia." as his/her closing sentence in the original article. (I hope it's OK to comment here even if without a real account...) --75.108.178.227 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, this is arguably WP:POINT, though I'm not sure what the point is. I for one don't appreciate it. —Swpb talk contribs 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's not making a point, nor is he disrupting Wikipedia, so how is he violating WP:POINT? Both the article creation and the AfD were good faith and valid, whether or not they were by the same person. I might add that Interiot is one of our most respected editors/toolserver users. --Rory096 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm aware of Interiot's status, I have his code on my monobook page. However, I don't see how creating a page and immediately AfDing it can both be valid actions. If Interiot felt the article should not exist, he should not have created it, and if he felt it should, why would he list it for AfD? His comment about dissecting the frog implies he meant the process to be a joke. And wasting editor's time on an AfD, while not the most disruptive act possible, is nonetheless disruptive. —Swpb talk contribs 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That makes alot of sense. This article is in very good Wiki-form. Having created several articles, I know the work that goes into it and nobody would go through all that trouble and then immediately send to AfD without having some agenda. --Oakshade 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Swpb is right, in hindsight, it was a bad idea. I apologize for using up people's time on an AfD while misleading them.
              • That said, both the article and the AfD have been worked on by multiple other people, and have expanded quite a bit beyond my initial shady contributions. In order to not further waste the time they've consumed working on the article and AfD, hopefully the AfD can end as normally as possible. In addition, because it's the only thing I can undo at this point, I can strike my 'vote' if anyone asks (feel free to email me). Though, for what it's worth, my AfD reason was the more "valid"/more sincere of the two. --Interiot 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UShip

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OFPEC

[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable fansite. Fails WP:WEB, under 1000 Google hits. Andre (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Jungle Music

[edit]

I've tried, believe me, but I've found no evidence that this is an actual, widely accepted genre of electronic music. It has no mentions on intelligent dance music or jungle music, Google turns up empty, and the articles listed are generally considered by sources to be something else. Crystallina 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Major U.S. Carriers and North American Carriers

[edit]
6 Major U.S. Carriers and North American Carriers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is not notable. It is a list of airlines in North America, and other information collected from other wikipedia articles. It has no links from other pages on wikipedia (except redirects) —Cliffb 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pages that were moved into the original nomination:

—Cliffb 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to Belvedere College. Agent 86 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belvedere Sleepout

[edit]
Belvedere Sleepout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Small, unremarkable charity event Curtains99 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important event in the college, and is a fairly well known event in Dublin. Deco16-10 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems called for. I have added the tags and concerned editors can do the merge. W.marsh 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Frigate

[edit]
Missile Frigate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I reviewed parent page TradeWars 2002 and there are more pages about ships used in that game, it should be better to keep all of them as they are. Merging will lead to very long article. Tulkolahten 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think merging will destroy uniformity of the whole article. I would agree with moving to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002) per Copysan. Tulkolahten 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
corrected to link to category, not categorize this AfD. BCoates 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio K Opened

[edit]
Studio K Opened (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason MagnumXL200 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Delete-There's already a Studio K. Why would we need a Studio K Opened, exactly?[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ellis Holley

[edit]
John Ellis Holley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Google search for ("John Holley" HVAC) produces no information which corroborates the article, ("John E Holley" HVAC) produces no hits whatsoever. Either hoax or -very- non-notable inventor. Prod contested without explanation. (Also including John E Holley, redirect created when page was moved.) Seraphimblade 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-paying bidder

[edit]
Non-paying bidder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested proposed deletion. Original prod reason: Thinly-veiled advertisement for a commercial service (see last paragraph). Otherwise, nothing here that isn't already covered in eBay and related articles. – Gurch 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Hong Kong

[edit]

Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Content of article is unencyclopedic and barely treats the topic. It is unclear to me whether there is any value in having a slew of articles Teaching English in Country X. (See Teaching English in Italy as an example of another article that has little or no encyclopedic value. It seems to me that, for the time being, our efforts should be focused on expanding Teaching English as a Foreign Language rather than having a slew of stubby little articles on Teaching English in Country X. Richard 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Miles (runner)

[edit]
Brandon Miles (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn high school runner/webmaster Longhornsg 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warheads (confectionery)

[edit]
Warheads (confectionery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. Non-notable by WP:CORP criteria. Bringing it here. Denni talk 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well-established candy that has built significant name-recognition in the 30+ years since it was first introduced. Merging article with a (dare I say less-notable?) parent company that has owned the brand for less than two years would be counter-productive. -- Antepenultimate 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about the confectionery itself, not the parent company. The fact that the parent company is NN by WP:CORP is irrelevant to this AfD. If there's a problem with the parent company's notability, the AfD should be for Impact Confections instead. WP:CORP is only appropriate for corporations, not confectionery items. Mister Pe 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please read WP:CORP more carefully: there is also a section about products, so the nom is correct.
  • Comment: Since this article went to AfD, I have expanded upon it and cited two independent sources for my information. I believe it now adheres quite nicely to the notability guidelines set out by WP:CORP's Products & Services section. -- Antepenultimate 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You're right, and I think it fits the Products and Services section, point 2. Thanks to Antepenultimate, there are now references showing this as well. The rest of WP:CORP doesn't apply, though.Mister Pe 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Former chair of the Independent Election Commission (1997), Secretary-General of the African Development Bank (1987-1988), author of Cry, Liberia, Cry. Died of heart failure, September 3, 1997. See "Scorched Ether::Radio Broadcasting in the Liberian Civil War" El_C 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Andrews

[edit]
George Henry Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried several different Google queries but couldn't find one relevant hit that wasn't Wikipedia or some mirror. Someone on the talk page opined that the subject of this article may be made up. An overly chatty article with a "verify" tag that's been there for over a year. Thunderbunny 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant Weak Delete I found a page that mentions him on Tripod [53], and he was a national cabinet minister, which makes him at least as notable as a member of a national legislature. But I couldn't find anything on him in reliable sources in a basic Google/Books/Scholar search and the article does not cite such sources. JChap2007 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search on "George Henry Andrews Liberia" turns up a few ghits. Most notably, there is a book "Cry, Liberia, Cry" by a G. Henry Andrews. I would give this article the benefit of the doubt. --Richard 02:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. He was apparently a cabinet minister, which makes him notable in my book. But the article needs better references and a rewrite for style. WMMartin 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sweet

[edit]
Adam Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be a vanity page mostly contributed by the subject Dontdoit 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a vanity page...more of a bio page

sorry you think the 250 or so students I've taught over the last 16 years made a mistake in hiring me as their fiddle teacher. Oops, two of them have gone on to record cd's, one joined a touring symphony orchestra, four of them are Moms of great kids now...but I guess that's not important to the world —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centurymusician (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudome

[edit]
Pseudome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While biology uses many words in -ome, this one does not seem widespread, to say the least: almost no google hit and (more relevant) no hits at all on Pubmed. The only page I have found on the web is on a Wiki and everyone knows that these things can not be trusted it links to a non-existing "project". Delete Schutz 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 are no reliable sources. In fact, there are no sources at all. Please feel free to re-create an article that has actual sources. What we have now is an advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword

[edit]
E-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable software product, makes no attempt to pass WP:SOFTWARE. Demiurge 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am one of 4,000,000 users of e-sword and I find it to be a very helpful program with no computer viruses. People pay money for software like this and Rick Meyers (the software author) gives it away for free -- no strings attached. How can a FREE program with 4 million users not be notable? User: openheaven November 24, 2006

  • Reply: Likewise. I probably don't hold the same beliefs as Rick Meyers, but he has done an excellent job on this piece of software. It's worth keeping this article on Wikipedia. I don't understand the wish of Demiurge to delete this article. There's no real argument in the request. Is there some other agenda? --MaxHund 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I can agree that in 2004 this program may not have been noteworthy enough to merit an article here, however I do not believe that is still the case. In the past two years E-sword has escalated in functionality and popularity to the point that it is now relatively uncontested as the most useful free offline Bible study resource for the PC. I found this article to be very informative, and it directed me toward several resources that quite improved the functionality of my copy of E-sword. I think an E-sword page here on wikipedia is every bit as relevant as pages about some old videogames such as Shadowcaster, or Mind_Walker. I think at the very least this program is not unimportant enough to merit deletion. Opusfalse 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have found e-Sword to be a useful program, and came to Wikipedia for an article which I hoped would tell me about possible alternatives/competitors, and maybe for some views of the quality of some of the modules. The article could be improved, particularly in this first point, but was surprised at the notion that the page might be deleted. Please keep it. Michael
I haven't looked into the number of reviews of e-sword, but I would be extremely surprised if it did not clearly meet the guidelines for notability, as it has a well established group of users - the 4 million quoted above is just the start. For example, I have installed it on all of my family's computers, and several of my friends'. If it was only downloaded once (by me), and as there is no way to register or anything, who's counted all of them? Alister
  • Keep - E-Sword is notable as an extremely flexible and open framework for studying and comparing Bibles, concordances, and many other types of reference materials. It is rather unique in that it plays very well with many different file formats. Perhaps this could be brought out in the article more, but without making it sound like advertising copy. As User:openheaven pointed out, there have been over 4,000,000 downloads. --Willscrlt 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KarneskyDGG 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brookfield (geneticist)

[edit]
John Brookfield (geneticist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Linkless article on a college professor. Does not satisfy WP:BIO - there is no evidence that it is more noteworthy than an average university professor. He has some publications (as do most college professors), but nothing indicates that these are particularly noteworthy. Dsreyn 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN academic, and the page is a near-copy of the subject's page at his university, here. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable research scientist with 55 publications at PubMed link. Full professor at one of the top UK universities. Way more noteworthy than the average college teacher. Edison 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm taking WP:PROF as the standard of notability, and I don't see any evidence in the article (or in a fast websearch) that the subject meets any of those criteria. But of course PROF isn't policy. Edison: are you using a different standard of notability, or do you think Brookfield meets a PROF criterion? Cheers, Sam Clark 14:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Being in that project myself, he is by far notable enough. Number of publication , combined with Professor rank at a university is enough. (Number depends on field, but I can think of no field in bio where 25 or so would not be enough, and he has twice that.) There seems to be a certain bias against academics if AfDs are placed even if they have status as high as this. The current WP:PROF discussions do not have the least consensus, and are simply not an accepted criterion in WP, especially in science. But I highly commend the approach taken here of asking WP people in the subject if they want to comment. DGG 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The number of publications you say he has may be valid, but his notability needs to be established in the article. As it now stands, I don't really see how the article makes the case. It's not incumbent on those unfamiliar with the subject to do web searches to determine his notability. Dsreyn 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet the criteria proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Yes, he has made contributions but they are not of lasting and profound importance. DrKiernan 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, DGG. I'm glad my effort may have helped and was probably appropriate. Elsewhere, I've (almost) been warned about WP:NOVOTE when I've mentioned this tactic. So, that is something to consider as well. Keesiewonder 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once a month cooking

[edit]
Once a month cooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody's trivial freetime activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OAMC (talk • contribs). — OAMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The AfD was added by a new user 5 minutes after account creation with account name that matches article acronym. —Doug Bell talk 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_29&oldid=1081097338"