Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 13: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Daniel Olsen (talk | contribs)
6,244 edits
removing World Series Wrestling for relist
Daniel Olsen (talk | contribs)
6,244 edits
removing Altador Cup (relist)
Line 53: Line 53:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M Jennings}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M Jennings}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thought Shop}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thought Shop}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altador Cup}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man's Book}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man's Book}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of cathy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of cathy}}

Revision as of 23:07, 18 September 2006

< September 12 September 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Misza13 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way

Article lacks a variety of qualities, including NPOV violations, lack of reliable sources, and unverifability. ZERO GOOGLE HITS --Outoftunestringbass 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Jersey Youth Reform Team. Petros471 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Small

This biographical article appears to fail WP:BIO because while there is one newsworthy event to be covered, there is not a second. There are 84 unique search engine hits for the subject's name and "Jersey". In addition, this is a potential vanity article based on username of the creator and was deprodded without alteration. Erechtheus 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Gay rights in Britain. A notable event but a non-notable person. --Wafulz 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jersey Youth Reform Team, the organization which he is executive director of.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would withdraw this nom subject to a merge and redirect, but I really can't at this point for two reasons: we need to determine where to redirect the title after merges and I wonder if there won't be even other places where information from this article should go. Erechtheus 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is unbearably vague about what this fellow actually did. The European Court agreed to hear his case (about what? the article says nothing) but the case was settled before the Court could hear it. Then we learn he continued to work for "reform" and "the rights of young people" (what does that even mean?) in his home area. What establishes notability from that sequence of facts? All unsourced. Allon Fambrizzi 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Comment. The search engine results above will convince you that there is verifiable subject matter that is in need of documentation in at least the two articles mentioned above. I agree that this article is terribly written as is, though. This is where the old AfD dilemma comes in about whether this should be about what has been written in the article or what is readily available. I personally think neither of those options is always the right answer. In this case, I do think looking at what is available by Internet search makes sense. Erechtheus 06:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since with 49 unique Googles I'd say that his independent notability is questionable at best. Guy 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Keep: After looking at the article and the google hits the nominator provided I added some information, sources, ect. I'll see what else I can do when I get back this afternoon. This seems to be a notable person and event, there are verifiable sources, and while his main work so far seems to have to do with getting the law changed, he has founded an organization to promote youth rights and will probably eventually be mentioned for future works. I see no reason to delete. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not notable enough on its own, but shouldn't be deleted.Ramsquire 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the Pokémon Test. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Jersey. This young man did something most people wouldn't consider. The ages of consent were unequal - young people were too scared to voice the issue themselves, so he did.

He deserves this page as much as anyone else does. Luke, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.186.29 (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 move to H. L. Nage Gowda, nomination withdrawn. -- NORTH talk 08:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H. N. Nage Gowda

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Speedy Keep and move as said below. Tarret 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good one Antorjal. If he has won a state award, keep him. --Ageo020 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Jnanpith is awarded to one person every year. India has one billion plus people and 20+ recognized official languages. I think the Jnanpith criteria is as harsher than asking every British writer to win a Booker. The Sahitya Akademi award is a state-level award. I confess I know nothing about this author or the literature in the language he's written in, but I do know about this award and the recipients in the Indian languages I speak, who are well published and notable to millions. A problem with notability is that transliterations schemes don't always allow for the best hits and India has an abysmal record of getting stuff from local languages up on the net (hence the difficulty in searching on Google). I would like to request native speakers to establish notability (if it is notable) citing references. --Antorjal 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Janapada Loka The museum [2] founded by H. N. Nage Gowda is of encyclopedic quality. I don't know about his poetry but he's also listed as a poet under Vokkaliga, added in April by an anonymous editor. Mereda 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC) It looks like the subject is really H. L. Nage Gowra who's definitely notable [3], [4] (state award) and [5]. Mereda 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep, and move to H.L. Nage Gowda. The article name is an obvious typo - the person who started the museum is H.L. Nage Gowda, not H.N. Nage Gowda. H.L. Nage Gowda has won the Sahitya Akademi Award (see this obituary, which is a pretty prestigious literary award for writing in Indian languages. That clearly takes him past the threshhold established by WP:BIO. -- Arvind 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total for H. L. Nagegowda and H. L. Nage Gowda comes to just under a couple of hundred hits on Google. The largest obit is by HI. SHI. RAMCHANDRE GOWDA - I am not familiar enough with Indian naming ocnventions to know if that would likely be a relative or an impartial biography. Any clues here? Is there an article on the native-language Wikipedia? Guy 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Karnataka, "Gowda" is about as common as "Smith" in the UK, so I'd say the chance that he's a relative is pretty small. Incidentally, the newspaper in which that obituary was printed - The Hindu - has the same position in southern India that the New York Times does in the US, so an obit they print is unlikely to be mere hagiography. -- Arvind 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone's still feeling doubtful about his notability, he earned the honour of a State funeral [6] Mereda 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article, which hopefully establishes notability. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to move it to the correct title until this discussion is done, so I've left it under "H.N. Nage Gowda". -- Arvind 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the N to an L -- though I understand there's a Hangul character component that can be equally validly transscribed as /n/ or /r/, so it may not be a typo (yes, I know Korean is an entirely separate language). In any case, if he's won an award that itself has an article, that's notable enough for me.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Sahitya Akademi Award has its own article too, though a pretty bad one. -- Arvind 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This would have been an open and shut case of delete for me because of the issues noted but the "Sahitya Akademi" which is India's rough equivalent of the Pulitzer sealed this one for me. However, I do stress that the burden of proof lies with the article creator/editors.--Antorjal 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the fact that an author was nominated to hold office in a state legislature means he's respected in his own state and language. --Antorjal 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGB College, Inc.

Non-notable and unverifyable. Tarret 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webdip

Not notable software. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Yes, two articles have been written on the subject but that work is not an independent source since SourceForge tells us that the two project admins for this software are neunm and schultem, most probably the authors of these articles. Google finds a lot of hits for webdip but in fact very few for "webdip + database" [8] or for "webdip + decision" [9]. No significant third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Cities Mall

Non-notable mall, fails WP:CORP TJ Spyke 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete, subject to change if any user adds information that leads to the article passing WP:CORP. It was my hope to resolve that matter prior to an AfD, but the nominator chose to go ahead with this discussion, which is his right.Erechtheus 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are a slew of other articles about what I'm assuming many would consider to be non-notable malls. Why is this one so much less notable than so many others who are allowed to have their own articles? This mall is notable because it was one of the first enclosed malls in this part of the country.--MatthewUND(talk) 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's is a "part of the country?"–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. don't delete things from AFD pages[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that enclosed malls which are the first in their area are notable enough if only from a historic standpoint. Also agree with MatthewUND(talk) that there are other articles on malls, both enclosed and not, that haven't been targeted. (Not that I'm proposing we seek out mall articles for deletion.) MichaelCaricofe 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be a real shame when a decent article gets deleted all in the name of "process". --MatthewUND(talk) 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fight between notability and Wikipedia is not paper. "This is a mall" (the article says more than that, but not much more) pushes me onto the NN side. The article might be editable to put me on the not-paper side, as Erechtheus said. As it is, however, it's primarily a directory. By "process is important" I meant only that there is a consensus (an evolving one, to be sure) on what is appropriate for Wikipedia, and I'm not going to buck it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a good point, Jcuk. Why is it just fine to have countless articles about ficticious cartoon characters, but it is so bad to have an article about a physical place with a real history and - at the very least - regional notability. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually I'd be more than happy to see all the pokecruft gone from Wikipedia, but realistically speaking, that will never happen. Still, just because Wikipedia has become a stomping ground for hundreds of articles about the minutiae of a childrens cartoon (curiously written by people who apparently are not in the target 10 year old market) doesn't justify adding any other sort of article. A better arguement for this existing in Wikipedia is to demonstrate the notability of this mall... as other are attempting to do.--Isotope23 03:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Sorry folks but the deletes have not done any leg work here, so shame on you, especially the Nom which I virtual shake a finger at for lack of their own research. The mall was built in 1964 and called 'South Forks Plaza'. It was Grand Forks', and North Dakota's first enclosed mall. How is that for notability? --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - according to WP:V the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have added (or wish to retain) unreferenced information, not those who wish the unreferenced information to be removed. Mako 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I was aware this was the first enclosed mall in North Dakota... and I'm still was not convinced of notability; any more than I'd find an article about the first Ikea to open in Michigan (which was a huge media event in the Detroit area) notable. As there is no accepted guideline for physical locations, all I can go on is personal judgement and to me "first enclosed mall in a state" doesn't cut it.--Isotope23 04:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - This mall is as notable as any and Bschott above put it better than I can. Being the first mall in North Dakota certainly deserves recognition. Weatherman90 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And so far the keeps have not provided any SOURCES that show why it's notable. This mall is not notable just because you say it is. Also, you are free to nominate other similiar non-notable malls as well since I cannot know about every article on every mall here. TJ Spyke 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's just a mall in a smaller town, and it's a tourist attraction in North Dakota, esp. the eastern half of the state. Grand Cities Mall (formerly South Forks Plaza) was there more than 10 years before the more known Columbia Mall.--grejlen - talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be lesser known to some people who aren't from around here, but it's well known in North Dakota and western Minnesota.--grejlen - talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After more research at the library, I found technically the "Park Plaza Shopping Center" in Jamestown, opened a week before "South Forks Plaza" was the first enclosed mall in North Dakota, though the South Forks was finished first. (Courtesy of the "The Source: 2005 Edition", published by the Jamestown Sun) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Malls are businesses, in the business of renting space to retail stores. That means WP:CORP is the applicable standard. The article, and this AFD to date, contains no evidence (and not even an assertion) that the mall meets the standards set by WP:CORP. And yes, I assume that there are swarms of other mall articles out there that deserve deletion. When/if I encounter one in my editing, I'll nominate it, but I don't go out of my way to look for articles to nominate. GRBerry 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, that doesn't make WP:CORP apply, because the article is not about that business of renting out the space in the mall. Rather it is about the presence and impance on a community; it is more along the lines of the proposed Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Gene Nygaard 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who are voting keep, you need to provide a source that shows why this articles to be kept. No sources have been provided saying why this mall is notable at all. Also, Wikipedia:Places of local interest is only a proposed policy(meaning it isn't official policy yet). TJ Spyke 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You poisoned the well by bringing up WP:CORP. Museums and theaters and football stadiums are businesses too, but it isn't the business implications that are most important to the articles. Neither they nor malls should be considered on the basis of notabilities as businesses, per se. Gene Nygaard 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TJ, I don't know how much clearer it could be. Head down to the local library, see if they will order "The Source: 2005 Edition" published by the Jamestown Sun. Books are allowed as sources per Wikipedia policy if I recall, unless that changed overnight and someone forgot to forward the memo to me. --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does being the second enclosed mall in South Dakota make it notable though? TJ Spyke 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no idea Grand Forks was in South Dakota. Only lived in North Dakota most of my life and thought GF was in North Dakota. Guess I learn something new each day from people who can't even take the time to get the facts straight. It was the first built/completed but second opened (by six days) in North Dakota. It also has been the longest open as "The Park" was closed for a few years then reopened back in the 1980's, and although it had damage because of The Flood of 1997 it was re-modeled and one of the very first businesses reopened after the flood. I'm quite sure a search of the local paper, the GFH would bring up these facts, though they don't have a searchable Archive online. Guess I'll head down to the local library and do a bit of research. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has references, fine, but malls are not inherently notable and the article makes no claim to notability. Doesn't pass the WP:CORP test. Fernando Rizo 18:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is an important historical building in Grand Forks, North Dakota! --RicKAbbo 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "the first enclosed shopping mall built in North Dakota" seems notable enough to me, though perhaps it's marginal. Jonathunder 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edgecution 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom is NOT a valid reason. This is not a vote, rather discussion based on research whether or not the article should stay. Delete per nom means nothing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I agree with the reaon it's nominated. It's a non-notable mall(although very few malls are notable) and I haven't seen a valid reason for why the article should not be deleted. Edgecution 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think that many of the "delete" votes come from people who live in places where shopping malls grow like weeds, and thus cannot conceive of why any individual mall would ever be notable. I sympathize, but also recognize that the notability of something depends not just on what it is, but also on where it is. In the case of North Dakota, a large enclosed mall is undoubtably notable, even if it wouldn't be in, say, Phoenix or Los Angeles. Skybum 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have said it better myself. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not ready to change my vote yet (and I think this will be no consensus anyway) but this is finally the first really interesting reason to keep and I'd like to see it expanded upon. Are malls really so rare in the State of North Dakota that the first mall is notable? I have to admit, where I live, in 1 hour's time I could get to 10-12 malls easily. A mall simply is no big deal.--Isotope23 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isotope, I guess I should explain. Enclosed malls are not abundent up in North Dakota cities as a whole. Fargo, the biggest city in North Dakota has one...West Acers. Grand Forks, has two (columbia and grand cities), Jamestown has one, and there is one in Bismark, the state capital. Something else to point out is that theses cities are hours apart, making enclosed shopping malls nearly a novelty. Grand Forks and Fargo are 45-50 minutes apart via the interstate highway 29 (which is 75MPH and little traffic). Jamestown - Fargo is +2 Hours and Bismark-Fargo is 4-5 Hours, hence the reason the editors from North Dakota are so against this delete. It's the longest running enclosed mall in a state with so few of them around. I can understand if LA, NYC, Miami, DFW, or KC has 10-40 (or more) enclosed malls within the city (or suburbs) making someone from that area believe enclosed malls are not notable, but from an area where the next closest enclosed mall is a +2 hour drive...the mall would be notable. This mall is notable for the community because it is a 'big deal' for the city. It was the Focal point of the city's shopping economy for decades, and still has drawing power. In a state with a total population of 642,200 people I hope you can see the context, when a city such as LA has a total population of 4,097,340! , --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think I can approve of where this sort of reasoning takes us. I have family members who live in rural West Virginia. Up until they got a Wal-Mart last year, they had no shopping of that nature within around an hour of where they lived. Does that mean that the Welch Wal-Mart should have an article because it's a "big deal" to the few people who live in the northern part of McDowell and the southern part of Wyoming counties? I don't think so. Erechtheus 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think you can compare a Wal-Mart store to an entire mall. A Wal-Mart, no matter what kind of an impact it has on a local community, is just one store. On the other hand, a mall is more than just a store. In ways, it is almost like an entire neighborhood. The Grand Cities Mall had a major impact on the city of Grand Forks. When it opened, it started the decline of once-bustling downtown Grand Forks. In ways, the mall was a "new downtown". People had never seen anything like it. It seemed huge back then and its opening forever changed the business climate and the landscape of the community. In North Dakota, the opening of a mall is not a regular news item. The opening of this mall was especially noteworthy since it was basically the first mall that anyone had ever seen in this area. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ogdred. Markovich292 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MatthewUND. Strip malls would generally not be notable, but major shopping malls should be; perhaps we need better CORP guidelines or a seperate WP:MALL guideline to handle this. Yamaguchi先生 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Keane

"Every song on album by Keane. Listcruft." Ogdred 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is not covered by other articles, we do have a lot of this lists and I did create those MIDI samples. Therefore, I'm uploading a better version of Snowed Under right now. I added the information of the "rare material"--Fluence 23:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare songs by Keane

Another list of songs by Keane. Ogdred 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane's controversies

Random facts about Keane. Listcruft, and a possible copyvio -- the infor is taken from an FAQ site, according to the article. Ogdred 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for TBC. I personally asked for permission to Chris Flynn for using the information from his website. He did want credits for. And a copyright tag is located at the bottom of the article.--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you find the way to merge it into Keane and it's not deleted, I won't fight keeping this article. And believe me. I cannot lose--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zesix

Unnotable network. I was at first fooled by Google's 44 000 hits but on closer inspection it's 49 unique non-wikipedia hits! [11] No sign of third party coverage. Unquestionnably fails WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that that "49 unique non-wikipedia hits" is incorrect. You are grossly misreading Google results. Do a search for the word cat. By your logic there are fewer than 900 "unique hits" for that word. Common sense tells you that is nonsense. Quatloo 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the number is this small it is less likely to be misleading in that way. My benchmark is that if you get more than about 200 unique, and thousands total, the unique count is probably worthless. I could, of course, be way off there. Guy 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been frequent reports in the past that the unique hits are only filtered from the first 1,000, so when the total's much higher, they're not valid. They may be of value to provide a ratio, as in this case, 95% of hits are dups of the first 5%. (Per below, by refining the search, the relevant total came much lower. It appeared from experimenting that 7,000+ were foreign uses of zesix as a word, and 36,000+ were from their own domains, leaving not much.) Fan-1967 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice job of picking that up. You'd think that maybe people would use a slightly more subtle user name when spamming. Pascal.Tesson 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[12] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Over 1100 google hits excluding wikipedia/mirrors. Ironically, the article you link to provides strong support for claims of notability, as it places the founding of the school within the historical context of struggles within the Baptist leadership of Texas. The information that the school is not accredited would be extremely useful to people considering enrolling. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
I get 1,020 for "Carroll Theological Institute" at google including the wiki article and mirrors as the second thur fifth hits. How is it notable? Because the "Associated Baptist Press" (not to be confused with Associated Press) wrote an article? What's the ABP circulation? Arbusto 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I get 1,260 general hits with the WP mirrors, and those boil down to only 216 distinct Ghits. The article makes no attempt to show notability, and without sources appears to be original research. The article makes no statements about any struggles for Baptist leadership, nor historical context. I do note the "Associated Baptist Press" claims in their ad rates they have 80,000 paid subscribers with an estimated readership of 200,000. Fine, but WP:CORP (the closest guidelines I can find) requires multiple non-trivial third-party articles to establish notability, and I'm only finding church newsletters and blogs for the rest of it. In any case, per the ad sheet the ABP is a church organ (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) and not a third-party. Tychocat 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Dlohcierekim alluded to, how does this meet notablity standards at WP:CORP? Arbusto 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the issues is WP:V, and WP:CORP notability. Without WP:V to verifiy what it is the article will be bastion of POV, and what it isn't (accredited). If this institute becomes notable and has valuable sources then the article should be recreated, but until then the article lacks WP:V which does no favors to the instiute. Arbusto 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have a problem with us documenting known diploma mills so long as we specify that these institutions are not accredited. Silensor 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP (if any more detailed evidence of the institute being important in the intra-Baptist struggles that made it into non-Baptist press then I may consider changing my attitude). JoshuaZ 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Jew, I cannot possibly understand all the nuances that went into creating this school. But a thorough read through the articles regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine and was created to meet a perceived need for a new type of school. That a new school is not accredited by a well-known accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill. Nor do I find it at all unusual that the mainstream press hasn't latched on to this school as a subject for articles that would confer the notability so many feel it would be given. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of WP:V . I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding its nonaccreditation making it a suspected diploma mill to be a staggering violation of WP:AGF. I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding those who are so quick to delete it based on entirely unsupported suppositions and original research. Alansohn 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply to prove my point about good faith violations. These folks seem to have a genuine interest in teaching folks their version of Baptist theology as they understand it. I've seen ads for diploma mills, all of which read "send in a check we'll send you a sheepskin." If you take a look at the school's admission requirements, they're doing a very poor job of attracting only those who just want a phony credential. I see no evidence (nor has anyone offered any) implying that they're pushing paper, and not their brand of gospel. I find the school notable and verifiable, and I can at least respect challenges to the issue, even if I disagree. But, other than that, all I see are rampant violations of WP:AGF. Alansohn 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment AGF applies to users and their actions. AGF has absolutely nothing to do with assuming the school is acting in good faith. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree 100%. I see people deciding to delete this article because they have presumed that the article was created to push a diploma mill. The bad faith demonstrated regarding the institution itself is just gravy (bordering on bigotry). Alansohn 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per alahnsohn notability is not doubted here by me either Yuckfoo 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If notability isn't doubted by you then explain how it passes WP:CORP? Around 200 google hits and article asserts nothing.Arbusto 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this several in the last few weeks to get attacked. I am compiling evidence to end this though. Arbusto 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Range Studios

First AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios

This article was deleted after the first AfD, mostly over advertising/POV concerns. User:VegaDark requested to recreate a non-POV version of the article. So the questions for this round are: 1. Does the article adhere to WP:NPOV, and 2. Does the article successfully establish notability? ~ trialsanderrors 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Since the first AfD I've made major improvements to the article to make it much more NPOV and encyclopedic Diff, which were the main reasons for it's original deletion. This company is to be considered notable based on the criteria at WP:CORP, please see my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12 on that. The article still needs cleanup so feel free to make any edits you feel appropriate, I erred on the side of keeping info when I did my rewrite so there is probably still some info the article could do without. VegaDark 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per VegaDark. A clear, NPOV article that establishes notability. Since there is no one really voting delete, I feel a speedy keep is in order. --Daniel Olsen 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I voted Weak Keep last time; User:VegaDark has definitely improved the quality of the article greatly, mostly by making the article shorter. Nicely done VegaDark. My Alt Account 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — much better than the draft :) -- lucasbfr talk 01:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. VegaDark has done great work, but I still don't see enough reliable sources that push the company over the line in WP:CORP. Specifically, of the references, the first two sources are interviews, which are not fact-checked. The third is an article written by one of the company founders. The fourth is commercial self-promotion. Five, seven, and ten are about The Meatrix, which we have covered. Eight is a press release with a single paragraph about one of their films. And eleven is their own site. That leaves only one reference, number six, a short article from the Epoch Times. With only one article that's actually about the company and from what I'd call a reliable source, to me this doesn't pass WP:CORP. It pains me to advocate deletion of such a nice-looking article, but unless more evidence of notability turns up, I don't see an alternative. Sorry, William Pietri 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree some of the sources are suspect, the first two I would consider meeting the requirements of WP:CORP (first isn't working right now though). I asked on the talk page if interviews meet the requirement or not and the answer was essentially "it depends, use good judgement". I think they look independent enough to be reliable. The fifth source is not only about the movie, part of the article about the company that made it. VegaDark 01:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. I left out reference 9, which is a link to an unsigned blog-ish post on a web portal. Sorry for the unintentional ommission. William Pietri 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with William Pietri here, looking at the Newsbank coverage I get less than ten mentions total, about half in passing, and none that are actually about the company. Four or five are about Store Wars, so that might be worth an article, but I'm unwilling to buy arguments that two sources are enough to fulfill WP:CORP when the WP article is longer than the full text length of the sources. We're here to summarize the existing sources, not to extend them. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked through the refs, and though some of the links don't work (after only 11 days), there are enough that do that, to me, provide independent verifiability. That, plus the filmography shows plenty of notability in my book. I didn't see it before the page was redone, but it looks like it should be kept at this point. Akradecki 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William Petri. Though the article looks nice, if it isn't just promotion, why are there so many images in the page? It does feel like free advertising to me... --Ogdred 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William's reasoning above. I share his disappointment - even I have heard of this and I am the last person to hear about web fads and the like, but the independent reliable sources simply do not seem to be there, and without them we can't have an article, because we can't verify the neutrality of the article. Guy 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite William's reasoning, a quick web search shows me that there's a lot more out there that can be used. WP:V should not be a major obstacle here. Okay, WP:CORP may be, but it seems like this is the kind of company that may fit in the fringes of that guideline... and I would really hesitate to classify this under "indiscriminate collection of information," and WP is not paper after all. As WP:NPOV is no longer an issue here, I think we can keep Vega's hard work. Mangojuicetalk 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find that these two sentences:

1. ...and the novelty of it got the attention of both the general public and the social activism community

2. ...Free Range delivered its first Flash animation piece that would have worldwide impact.

and the overall tone of the article is trying to be, at times, too corporate-bound, as someone from the company, Free Range Studios, or someone from an advertising firm hired for Free Range was to write to pronounce and glorify efforts, that I think, is from just another rank and file graphics firm. I understand that this studio has been instrumental in eliminating the civil war in Sierra Leone, but what percentage of contributions they gave to ending the bloodshed is questionable; (is there an article stating the direct cause Free Range Studio's movie had on both sides of the war? Would internet access and electricity be readily available for the warring sides? I simply cannot imagine whether the bloodshed in Sierra Leone, would have, even momentarily, ceased to watch and think about this Flash animation). Finally, The sources lack the tangible authority that Wikipedia is generally known for when its users produce knowledgeable, useful, and globally relative. The sources, or the lack thereof, appeal to people who have strong interest in graphic arts and is severely limited to that clique. An internet user would gather more information simply googling for Free Range Studios, and visiting the company's official website.Hellwing 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, A7 (no assertion of notability). Guy 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Parkins

I cannot verify this information and the article is unsourced. Deville (Talk) 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Sango123 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Residential College

Non notable residential college at the University of Miami. Google hits are mostly from the University of Miami website. Babomb 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Flight 7145

This is not a major aviation incident. No one died, the cause of the crash is not peculiar; its just a plane that crashed. It has no encyclopedic value. – Zntrip 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, discounting SPAs, newbies. Alkivar's keep would be more compelling if it weren't in Pirate-Day Pirate-Speak. :) Xoloz 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church)

non-notable, fails verifiablity, fails WP:LIVING —Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. The reference links don't work, and an affidavit is not a reliable source. —Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Many of the details would be verifiable (there was a civil suit). The first link does work, pointing to a news article, and there is back-up on the Ross page, stating that this did bankrupt the CAN. There is clearly an honest attempt at sourcing the aticle here. Is this deletion request in good faith? --Ogdred 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and being the case that caused the Cult Awareness Network to go bankrupt and end up in the hands of the Scientologists (assuming that is indeed true) is certainly notable in my book. --Ogdred 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nom is in good faith. Neither of the links was working when I nommed it. I agree that the case itself is notable, but is the person? —Hanuman Das 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. Shortfuse 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uhh...so is he really notable because litigation involving him caused the CAN to go bankrupt? And in that case why isn't it enough that the CAN article covers this? This fellow is a private citizen who does not seem to have done anything besides file a lawsuit against the CAN. Litigants in lawsuits, even if the lawsuits generate famous issues or produce famous results, are not usually notable. We should respect this guy's privacy. Allon Fambrizzi 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Yeah, what he said. —Hanuman Das 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I see it, the article passes WP:V, WP:LIVING and the links work, so most of the reasons for deletion given here are not valid. The article presents reasonable detail about his notability, including not just the suit itself, but the circumstances around the later settlement, and attempts by his former lawyer to nullify it, so Scott is not just a plaintiff here. On top of that, it is a fairly well written and sourced page, in contrast to most of what is being discussed here. --Ogdred 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ultimately this is not about Jason Scott the man, it's about the Jason Scott deprogramming incident and subsequent repercussions. The subject appears to have little or no coverage outside of that restricted locus. Thus, covering it in the articles on CAN and Ross is both logical and prudent per WP:LIVING . I am not sure the subjecty would consider this incident to be the sum totalof his life's worth, and as the article says his current activities are unknown (for good reason: he is not actually independently notable). Nor is this article entirely about Jason Scott, a fair bit of it is about his mother as well. Overall, I'd say delete this history and redirect the few inbound links to CAN. Guy 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge with/redirect to CAN article. --Roninbk 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This man had a huge effect on the deprogrammer industry. Seano1 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename The arguments for renaming the page to something like "The Rick Ross -- Jason Scott Case" make sense, but the information is too important to the history of cults to delete. Thank you. User:AOrange 17:08 13 September 2006 (PDT) — Possible single purpose account: AOrange (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Keep. I agree with AOrange that it might be renamed after the Case, though, as it's not really about Jason Scott's life, just his famous case. --Eileen R 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a biography, but an article about a court case, a case which is only important in the context of CAN. Any info not in the CAN article should be merged into it. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrrrrr this be a Keep says I tis a famous incident... methinks this belongs as a keep!  ALKIVAR™ 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge any relevant details into the CAN article. TewfikTalk 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NebraskaFish

Notability/importance in question. Text itself indicates ...NebraskaFish's is known to few outside the state of Nebraska... — NMChico24 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Not only was it never going to pass muster, it was created by the developer and was inconsistent about whether it actually exists or not. So while it might not strictly qualify for speedy (although actually it did lack sufficient context to establish why anyone would want it), it does qualify for early closure before the AfD becomes an attack on the creator. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Guy 12:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secure the system

Fails WP:SOFTWARE as a minor utility and was created by the developer. Crystallina 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanked, per request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse ripping compared to cattle mutilation

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calera Presbyterian Church

Delete. Non-notable church. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Czwartkowski

An unencyclopedic article on a nn Canadian author and poet whose children's book, All Aboard The School Bus, co-written with four other writers, is not recognized by Amazon.ca and Chapters.Indigo.ca (the country's two largest booksellers), and receives a total of three unique ghits - all sourced through Wikipedia. The anthologies in which Czartkowski has appeared are also not recognized. Possibly a vanity article - the original editor has contributed exclusively to this article, Robert L.J. Zenik (Czwartkowski's husband), and lists, such as List of Canadian poets, to which the user has added Zenik and Czwartkowski. Victoriagirl 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was bone-shattering roundhouse delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHI-GI 氣-기

  • Delete: Possibly a hoax? Definitely unsourced and I can't find any verification for this even existing. A martial arts form founded in New Zealand sounds a little fishy, no? If someone can prove me wrong, I'll gladly end this early. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not entirely sure about this -- it doesn't exactly look like a hoax to me, just poorly written and unsourced. (Oh, and the characters and caps in the title would have to go.) I cwould deleat on WP:V, as I can't find any relevant Google hits. --Ogdred 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Zazaban 04:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without going into whether this particular article is a hoax or not, I want to point out a big pitfall of counting ghits for a term in Chinese, namely that transcriptions and transliterations can vary -- I can think of at least three transliteration systems just for Mandarin, not to mention whatever one-off ways people come up with of contextlessly writing down one Chinese word in Roman letters.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note that the characters in the title are half Chinese and half Korean ("기" is a Korean character), which may be further proof that the article is a hoax.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - I am going to go to NZ to track these guys down. Then, I'm going to kick all their asses. I will be able to fully document the martial art once I'm done doing this. Until then, no evidence that it even exists. My Alt Account 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that original research? 8-)–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ass-kicking will get very substantial independent coverage. My Alt Account 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem

Delete. Non-notable synagogue. Most synagogues, churches, etc are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is based on a mass deletion of churches. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska. Jon513 10:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Evangelical Lutheran Church

Probably not a notable congregation. Another user endorsed this proposed deletion. Peter O. (Talk) 03:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquanodd labs

Vanity page of non-notable corporation. No hits on google. No alexa traffic ranking. No evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 03:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson II, L. R.

It really does read too much like an advertisement. And no citations. Bordello 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Vanispamcruftisement. --Daniel Olsen 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His web site says that Upside Down Art is hanging at the Louvre -- that sounds pretty important to me! Delete. --Ogdred 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Does not seem like any issues exist to justify further discussion. Allon Fambrizzi 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Comment. How does it fall under WP:CSD? Not having any "issues existing" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Also, the nomination has been recently created, so there's always a chance for someone further on to bring up new evidence showing that the article may be notable.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --physicq210 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement created by the artist's promoter. Guy 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Thε Halo Θ 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google returns no independent info about this guy. It seems like an hoax or con. Seano1 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you delete me then would you delete my Uncle, Ernest Emerson of Emerson Knives, known all over the word and who's knives are used by US/British special forces? "My art "introduced to Lourve" L R.E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.17.90 (talk • contribs) 14 September 2006.
    • Maybe, maybe not. The AfD debates are not linked in any way, they only create a "precedent" if the cases are extremely similar, and even in that case they're always independently considered. (If anything, delete debates can provide guidance to forging the notability criteria.) In this case this article's debate wouldn't have any bearings whatsoever on deletion debate of Ernest Emerson, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WIKIPEDIA -DOES NOT GET MY POINT -You suggest Google was a source for verification! Ha, I am the source for verification! My uncle-Ernest Emerson, I am also the 13th Great Nephew of Hannah Emerson -DUSTIN, who's reatated to Ralph Waldo Emerson, thus I am also part of the Ralph Waldo Emerson Family Tree, and so is my Uncle, Ernest Emerson. Emersons have been in the US since the 1640's. Don't delete any one of us until you know your facts. Goolge should never be your only source. My accomplishments are well documented in many ways and I do not share all of my work with the web or with it's users. This year alone I am giving away $1,000,000 in art. Is this also nothing to Wikipedia??? Delete me I don't care, delete all of the Emerson's. - signed L. R. Emerson II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.21.197 (talk • contribs) .
    • First, Google test is only something that gives people a gut feeling on how widespread or popular something is - it's not a substitute for notability criteria, but it's an indicator among many. But in this case, it's pretty problematic: the article has no references. If we can't google this, how on Earth anyone is supposed to fill the references and clean up the ad tone? One would guess there were a lot of web references famous people of this caliber, no? Yet none are referenced in the article, not even the printed material, none of the press material. Second, "this person has famous relatives/ancestors" is not a positive notability criterion. We've already deleted a lot of articles on the grounds that they're just some celebrity's children with absolutely no accomplishments of their own. Third, please don't take AfDs personally. We're not debating about your worthiness, we're debating whether or not the article fits our inclusion criteria in this state. And forthly, please sign your comments by using the signature button on the toolbar, or using four tildes in row (~~~~) after your comment. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Celebrity - Ha!! I am not desiring nor needing celebrity. As far as references within the article Emerson Knives and Ernest Emerson's work as well as Hannah Emerson Dustin and Ralph Waldo Emerson's work are easily researchable on the web. Only since last year have I allowed work about myself to be posted on the web by my representative e4 FINE ART, e4fineart.com., >To talk</, you mention google was only "one" way of many way to get a gut reaction to an article, despite that on goolge searching "l. R. Emerson II" produces 3 pages of results. Are you saying I do not exist at all. Even just in May, 2006 my work was exhibited at Virginia's elite and nationally respected, Contemporary Arts Center and two television programs have recently been in contact with me. My work was being published as early as 1985 in both trade magazines and Newspapers. Work has also been on th cover of Entertainment Sections of Daily newspapers and other newspapers. During the past 20 years more than 100 awards, including ceremonies in my honor have be bestowed upon me - not that I care or I would have introduced my "upside-down art" 20 years ago. Instead I professionally perused art starting in 1985 and built a tremendously successful business, as awards came in and in 2005 hired assigned a major portion of my work over to e4 FINE ART to represent and promote. I am not really sure why this is any of your "talk pages" business to know.

Is every article on wikipedia written with every single detail of a person's ( they are the subject) life or life's work. Seems to me the majority of the qualitative comments on this discussion about deleting the article have been that There were no references or that the style of the writing sounded like an ad. There are some published biographical articles in the possession of e4 FINE ART, which do not sound like an ad. Is Wikipedia saying these should be incorporated into the article, "Emerson, L. R.' ?

Sounds to me Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia edited by users but rather an encyclopedia wishing it was Britannica. It is not critical for me to see that all evidence of my success be posted to the web. So to use google as a "primary" source, albeit ‘gut feeling’ or whatever is bogus. My accomplishments speak for themselves and there is so much more to be told and to come. If other tests exist to define the merit of an article what are they??? L. R. E. 4.88.19.176 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)/* Emerson II, L. R. */[reply]

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia edited by users. It's also an encyclopaedia that is edited by users. This may sound surprising. "Editing" doesn't just mean "add random information that someone finds interesting", yes, we value that too. But editing also means "summarise, compare, add sources, add pointers to further information". That's what "real" encyclopaedias do, too. As said above, don't require web sources, just sources that are reliable and sufficiently public. You say you have newspaper sources - that's fine, by all means, do add them to the article. Please be specific - it's not enough to say "has appeared on cover of magazines", but it would be prudent to give examples of such. As for published bios, we can't use them, due to copyright reasons, unless they're licenced under GFDL - but they can be used as starting points and sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish vocabulary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Individually, these would be grounds for deletion as they are all dictionary defintions. Collectively, they're just a list of dict defs, and no more notable for it. eaolson 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment - Many of these are not words but phrases and expressions which are commonly used in Singapore. This page would be helpful to users who have read the page on Singlish --Han Sheng 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, What makes a list of "explanations of various expressions used in Singapore" any different than an urban dictionary? Also how much does an expression have to be "used" to be considered notable enough to be on the list?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your argument. Nonethelss, the list does not intend to list every word in Singlish, but rather it lists only selected and representative words. A detailed Singlish lexicon can be found in http://www.singlishdictionary.com/ and it is hugh. The Afded-article only consists of a small and illustrative subset of the most common words. And we try to relate it to Singapore's history and culture. In addition, the etymology of some words is also provided where it would be interesting and informative. --Vsion 04:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the article "lists only selected and representative words", its still basically a list of Singlish dictionary definitions, which violates the WP:WINAD policy. Why not just remove the vocabulary definitions and add a section on the history and cultural background of the Singlish language?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though you may be correct in that "people from Singapore really do talk like this", how does that prove this isn't bascially just an urban dictionary? After all, a lot of people do use slang words.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that urbandictionary is full of made-up shit. Half the stuff that's "real" is less than 10 years old. The stuff in Singlish vocabulary existed before most of its practitioners were born, and it's well studied by linguists. My impression is that both linguists and "native speakers of Singlish" (if that concept makes sense) maintain the articles. While I don't particularly endorse the use of singlish, it's not really comparable to slang. My Alt Account 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linguists consider Singlish a pidgin. How is it relevant that it's not a formal version of English? And where was that disputed anyhow? Hell, I can hardly understand it (sort of annoying, since singlish speakers seem to expect native english speakers to understand them). WP:WINAD is mostly intended to prevent dicdef stub articles and (IMO) has little to say for or against the purpose of Singlish vocabulary. If I were to attack it, I'd be pointing to policies about lists. My Alt Account 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned that it was not a formal version of English and thus a type of slang, since you stated earlier on that Singlish was "not really comparable to slang." Either way, how does it make sense that a dicdef stub can violate the WP:WINAD policy, yet a list of dicdefs do not? According to your interpretation of WP:WINAD, any dicdef could bypass the WP:WINAD policy if written longer than a stub or in list form. Also, though the article doesn't seem to violate any list guidelines (note there are no policies on lists), it does however violate the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy.--TBCTaLk?!? 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is not just a dictionary or phrasebook. Giving readers an idea of what Singlish is like is helpful in their understanding to Singlish. By looking at the list, they can see how English, Malay, Hokkien etc. are mixed into Singlish. The origins of some of the terms are also indicated to show how various terms have come about. Those that are not indicated are still being researched or verified.
  • Comment Yes but a Singlish dictionary would be too specific and no one who wants to find out what Singlish is about quickly will have the time to go through a Singlish dictionary. This article is meant to give readers a general understanding of Singlish based on a representative list of words. It is not simply a list of dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions don't usually explain how the terms came about. --Han Sheng 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What does it mean to be a "representative list" of words? How were some words and phrases chosen as "representative" and others excluded? For example, I don't see what telling someone that "gabra" means "very confused" tells them other than the meaning of the word. I also think you'll find that any dictionary worth its salt does explain how a term came about; see [20] for example. eaolson 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether words are representative or not are not determined by just one person. That is exactly why this article is here for others to contribute. This article is still a work in progress. The words that simply list their definitions are still being worked on and I have yet to find additional information for these entries. These words are simply left-over from when this article was still a section in the Singlish page. It was never my intention to make this page a plain list of Singlish vocab and their definitions. I'm working hard to clean it up and make it more useful to wikipedia. That's also the reason why i added the clean-up tag to the top of the list. --Han Sheng 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a list of dictionary definitions, plain and simple. Work a few examples into the text of Singlish and it's not a problem. List them like this and it violates WP:NOT. kingboyk 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the problem is that many people who are actually proposing to delete this article don't understand what Singlish is about at all. Some might think that Singlish is something arbitiary formed from throwing together words from a few other languages. Fact is, Singlish has been around for more then 40 years, since Singapore's coloial days, and has slowly been evolving till its current stage today. It is not possible just to "work a few examples into the text of Singlish" as it would not be representative. Furthermore, this page originated from the article on Singlish and was split because the page was growing too long. If this page is to be deleted and a few examples were put back into the article on Singlish, the page would start growing too long again as more and more people add their examples. There are many similar pages available on Wikipedia, such as Australian English vocabulary, and they exist undisturbed. I'm not sure why there is a sort of double standard being practised here. I feel that this issue should be left to Wikipedians based in Singapore to decide whether this page is representative of Singlish and will help others in the understanding of Singlish. --Han Sheng 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what Singlish is la so please don't try to insult my intelligence. I have about half a passport full of SG entry/exit stamps. Delete the examples if they get too many. It's cruft. I know the problem, we get the same problem at The Beatles where newbies try to add every factlet under the sun about the group, but it's something we have to deal with. Singlish is an important English dialect which requires an article, but it's not so important that we have to breach WP:NOT and become a dictionary. --kingboyk 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one here is claiming that Singlish is "something arbitiary formed from throwing together words from a few other languages." Also, no matter how long Singlish has been around, the article is still nothing more than just a list of Singlish dictionary definitions, which is a violation of the WP:WINAD policy. Other related vocabulary pages continue to exist because they describe grammar, history, and background , whereas this article simply lists the definition every single Singlish related expression, which as I mentioned before violates WP:WINAD. As for your comment stating that "that this issue should be left to Wikipedians based in Singapore", please remember that Wikipedia (being a Wiki) is a community based project, thus issues are resolved among the Wikipedian community, not just a select group of users. --TBCTaLk?!? 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm not sure how (as an example) Australian English vocabulary differs from this page. How does it describe "grammar, history and background"? Anyway, I apologise if I stepped on a few toes while putting forward my argument on keeping this article. I'm still not too familiar about how things work around here as this is my first time participating in an Afd discussion. I see my mistake in suggesting that only Wikipedians based in Singapore should decide this matter. However, i hope that Singapore-based Wikipedians will have something valuable to contribute on the Singlish vocabulary page so as to make the information worth keeping on Wikipedia. --Han Sheng 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:NOT (which is policy and isn't negotiable) excludes this exact thing. "We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep," it says, and we aren't teaching people how to talk like a guy from Singapore either. Recury 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added further info in the introduction regarding attempts at organising Singlish vocabulary into a dictionary. Hope that would be something that is considered useful. --Han Sheng 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe the list of world could be shrunk. Seano1 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Current state of article is appalling, but it should not be deleted just because of the lists - remove them and provide better detail. Singlish's vocabulary as a creole is quite diverse - ranging from Hokkien to Malay as well as English corruptions, worthy of documentation. John Riemann Soong 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, what do you mean by "should not be deleted just because of the lists"? The article was nominated, not because it was a list, but because it consists of only dictionary definitions, which is a violation of WP:WINAD, a policy (not just a guideline) of Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not consist of only dictionary definitions. There is useful information regarding the attempts at documentation of Singlish vocabulary and the usage of such vocabulary. --Han Sheng 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lists" in the sense of indiscriminate lists of dictionary definitions. We should use wiktionary for that, but there are notable topics to cover about vocabulary ... once the lists are cleaned up we might have a shorter article to improve. 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup - as per John Riemann Soong. Ergative rlt 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not dictionary. At least delete the terms part. Pavel Vozenilek 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup - as per Ergative rlt. Leet speak, a fictional language invented by online gamers, has its own comprehensive article. However, this article lists only words that are explainable and have the highest level of usage in online gaming. With proper cleanup, Singlish vocabulary deserves a spot in Wikipedia, as nuances in a specialized form of Singaporean-English dialect is representative of cultural and lingual knowledge of a certain country and group of people; an aspect highly appropriate for Wikipedia. Hellwing 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this "article was nominated, not because it was a list, but because it consists of only dictionary definitions", then I must presume the 566 words in the introduction are either invisible to them or are considered worthy for deletion as well? This article is a helper article for Singlish to keep the later succint, and to allow for detailed and close examination of Singlish vocabulary. It is indeed strange that a change in format of factual presentation is probably all that is enough to swing votes in either direction.--Huaiwei 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That is a common occurance, and in fact, editors are greatly encouraged to improve on articles and save them from being deleted. I thus find it amusing that some editors continue to claim it was "nothing but dictionary definitions" when the article was rapidly expanded and improved on almost immediately after it was nominated.--Huaiwei 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much of the intro has been expanded yesterday, at least with three new sections, whereas at the time I commented the intro consisted only of a single paragraph. I suggest you please check the edit history first before claiming that it was "expanded and improved on almost immediately after it was nominated", which it was not.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, we can just list a number of that long list, and make it encyclopedic. This is a legitimate topic and Singaporeans converse in Singlish daily. This article is to explain some of the more well known Singlish words as foreigners mainly do not understand it. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and that is the job of a dictionary not an encyclopedia. That said, get rid of the definitions list and replace it with prose and it's a legitimate article. --kingboyk 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goy Advanced Automobile

Delete per WP:CORP, vanity, crystal ball - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom AmitDeshwar 02:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - non notable corp. Zero google hits. Just spam, IMO Brian 06:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With no Google hits and no website of their own, we don't even know if this company really exists. wikipediatrix 11:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP Angelbo 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article. Goy Advanced Automobile is an already existing Australian automobile manufacturer verifiable by the Australian Company Number 119 763 674. If anybody is interested, pls go to the Australian Securities and Investment Commision at www.asic.gov.au and search under the National Names Index. The company is in the R&D stage and its works are not available for public viewing until early next year. The official website will be completed by mid Oct - early Nov. It is not speculative. It is definite. It is as valid as any other automobile companies listed in Wikipedia, however young it is. However I admit that this article needs improvement and I will do the cleanup soon. Thank you for your understandingDavidgoymt 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the company is not trading, and information about it is confidential, it's hardly "as valid" as "other automobile companies listed in Wikipedia". It's simply not notable. There is no guarantee that the company will ever trade and the protocols of this site mean that crystal-ball gazing, whether by the most reputable of seers (or the least) is a no-no. When the company has achieved notability, an article will be deserving. Millions (if not billions) of properly registered and active companies all over the world do not justify Wikipedia articles because of lack of notability. How much more so one that has not even launched. Top tip: Get a stack of media coverage from reputable (and notable) sources and even without trading, an article would be justified. --Dweller 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemifacial Spasm Support

Brilliant website for people with HFS - it's just non-notable. Google shows around 32 sites linking to it [22] Casper2k3 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 5,610,977 [23]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. However - getting scared of arguments (& I am on the spam project) - putting the link on the article for this problem would not seem unreasonable? Nigel (Talk) 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though it might be a speedy delete since it is basically just a cut-and-paste job from other website. I put a copyright vio tag on it. Trnj2000 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but add a link to the page from hemifacial spasm per Nigel. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADD I am the webmaster for the Hemifacial Spasm Association website and I totally disagree with the comment that we are violating copyrights or are "basically just a cut-and-paste" website. The majority of the information on our website is member created, our member's personal experiences dealing with hemifacial spasm. Hemifacial Spasm is a condition, that due to being rare, often goes undiagnosed or mis-diagnosed by the medical community and many individuals find our site and take information from our site to their doctors to aid at arriving at a diagnosis, which obviously is the first step in treatment. Do to the need for kno/wledge and emptional support, our online membership currently has members from 26 different countries. If it is ultimately determined not to include us under "Hemifacial Spasm Support", then we would hope you would provide us as a link under "Hemifacial Spasm". Thanks
  • ADD - Jjoiii I am the webmaster for the Hemifacial Spasm Association website

and after further reflection, I think Nigel's suggestion to add a link to add a link to the page from hemifacial spasm would be more appropriate. Thanks for your consideration.

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

The result was delete patent hoax, and possible attack. Erring on the side of caution in that regard. Guy 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padulla Crime Family

Contested (by the original author) prod. Competely unsourced, possible attack article. eaolson 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Mellon University student organizations

listcruft, also see 1 and 2 Renosecond 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Denver Senior Honors Seminar

Appears to be a class syllabus. Not encyclopedic eaolson 05:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Merging some of the content is still an option if consensus on the destination talk page allows. Petros471 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television (2nd nomination)

Although the first nomination was closed recently with a no consensus vote 1, the relisting is due to that the fairly similar and the equal importance of the pages for the logos of Columbia-Tristar Television, Tristar Television ended in a delete vote. On my talk page, the admin that closed the vote told me that I should persue more action, and the deletion review have said it is fine to relist. The original nomination had very few votes, and the precedent was not created. Renosecond 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, they haven't been proposed for deletion yet, but considering a few articles of the like have already been deleted, this may well be soon. And also, could the voters look at the precedent of the 2 deleted pages and understand that merging really won't help any matters. Renosecond 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, although now I'm imagining enraged otters taking over the US Congress. DS 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry otters

[Check Google hits] Protologism. No evidence this is widely used. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kamber

nn prof, only 55 unique hits on google [24] and the organization he is a part of only gets 263 unique hits on it's own Renosecond 05:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Screw it, I withdraw the nomination. Renosecond 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midsouth Allstar Wrestling

Small time promotion that isn't very known. Wikipedia isn't the place for every small wrestling promotion. RobJ1981 06:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Marine Travel

Blatant spam  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  06:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted. – [ælfəks] 06:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES CO.

Contested prod2. Doesn't assert notability, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. --ais523 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space docking (sex act)

del urban dictionary is the place for these neosexlogisms invented in multitudes for their shock value. `'mikka (t) 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree, this page is fantastic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.178.248 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Above edit is IP's first and only edit to Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a Question keep, how else are we to find out about these things. it is related to that poo paraphilia as an example. It is ovbiously truthful, as there was that video. Knowledge is power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLINCOLIN (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Has cite on urban dictionary, where there are multiple definitions. Apparently real term, keep it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.51.29 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Factual, because of the reference in The Aristocrats, and the video evidence. If we pull Space Docking, do we pull the Rusty Trombone? Cream Pie? Snowballing? It's a slippery slope. Cop.rock 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id have to agree that we would never have the oppurtunity to discover these things, however rare and deviant they may be, without pages like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.160.45.163 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep- Danny Lilithborne apparently has nothing better to do than look at other people's edit history. If something is notable, than so be it. Don't let the Wikipedia-Nazis delete everything just because they don't like the subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.115.166 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- "This is the hottest thing since goatse. Need new pants. [[User::W.Marsh|W.Marsh]] 04:20, 11 September 2001 (UTC)
  • Restated Delete First off let's remain civil, and avoiding references to Nazis. True, Godwin's Law applies, but it does nothing to reach consensus.
Wikipedia has policies for a reason, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability andWikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Just because something is important to you, does not mean that it is encyclopedic. :Urban Dictionary is generally not considered as reliable as other dictionaries, because it has a lower peer-review standard than Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
The Aristocrats (film) came out in 2005, and the line was a tangential reference even within the film.
And just because I can videotape myself doing something, does not mean it's encyclopedic.
Come back when (and if) the term enters sufficient usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold textGet rid of it and the video link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jm gargoyle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per comments made at the top of this debate. How else are we supposed to find out about these things? A simple Google search ought to be able to help you out. I'd be concerned if people are using Wikipedia for sexual ideas. A mention on Urban Dictionary does not make it a real term. -- NORTH talk 09:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M Jennings

Non notable person, unverifiable. Was prodded. Links given in article since proposed deletion are to a new website under construction (with no mention of the name), and a link to a newspaper article that doesn't work. None of the events described in the article can be verified ("Gibraltar Amiga Exhibition" gets zero Google hits. Gibraltar plus Information Channel is too generic: adding Jennings to that search gives very few hits, none about the subject of the article. No references to the legal battle.) Fram 09:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thought Shop

If this group has indeed been around since the 1990s, then they should have done something notable by now. As it stands, this is just a vanity page. Delete. --Modemac 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the circumstances, pleased to meet you, Modemac. I was actually somewhat surprised at the deletion nomination, as I've contributed other (I'd like to think) valuable content here before; as things stand, being a packrat and annotator of odd Net histories (I still recall the flamewars on Alt.hackers.malicious, among many other places, always careful to avoid involvement, but observing with genuine interest, before Usenet became a complete and total Cesspool, sadly enough...), I would think a Google search of the Thought Shop's hacktivism activities, pro-individual-privacy stance on things and the like (including 'ChristerThon '97, I think it was called - **Correction: it was "Christer Troll 97"**), and/or hitting the wayback machine should yield quite a number of results.

So why haven't *I* added all of those things in? Well, I'm one person, myself, my investement in logging stuff isn't *that* rabid (so if Wikipedia deletes it, no hard feelings, I assure you), and I have a finite amount of time per day, and have to head out for work at the present moment. Time permitting, I'll add more there, if that is worth doing; if not, then I won't bother.

However, as a logical aside, noting the links I cited there this one and this one, if signed laudatory letters from the Founder of the Church of the SubGenius singing their praises for incidents clearly dated by/before 1994 (as those letters are) is not at least some small measure of proof of having done something, then I suppose one could either A) contend they are forgeries/fraudulent -- something easily enough found out by email Reverend Ivan Stang with them -- or B) by the same logic, if commendations from such High Pranksters as the head of the Church of the Subgenius worthless, is the Subgenius page there not also, too, a vanity page? If so, is it a candidate for deletion? I cannot imagine so, unless the grounds are on religious ones.

Actually, something which has come to mind regarding what could be the actual cause for lobbying to delete the entry about the Thought Shop has come to mind: I believe we've met before, Modemac; you & Rev. Stang had a falling out, if memory serves...?

If I am misremembering, *please* correct me -- seriously. However, if I'm not mistaken, and if that *is* the case, then your request for Deletion of the entry more likely than not has a personal motive behind it, I suspect.

Regardless, I bear you no ill-will, and leave it to the judgement of Wikipedia as to whether or not to judge what is, in fact, verifiable historical data, as frivolous and worthy of deletion; sadly, I'm out of time, so can neither continue this commentary nor dig through search engines and the like to provide the information available to substantiate things, beyond what is already there.

Regards,

RTF

Let's see...you're saying I have some sort of grudge against you, and you're worthy of inclusion because Reverend Stang wrote you a letter twelve years ago. Actually, I'd never heard of you until this morning, and based on the article's lack of content it's likely to remain that way. --Modemac 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely where above I stated that you "...have some sort of grudge against" me personally, I'm missing; I also don't see where I made the claim that Stang wrote *me* anything; I merely cited those as demonstrable proof that the group really had been around since the 1990's. If further content is needed, it won't be hard to provide. RTF 6:56am 14 September 2006 EST
"...your request for Deletion of the entry more likely than not has a personal motive behind it, I suspect." --Modemac 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't wipe the article before it's time -- that's what the deletion process is for. --Modemac 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Man's Book

Does not seem to meet WP:BK, crystal ballery. MER-C 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unless Thomas Fink is up for AFD this meets point one of WP:BK. It did indeed get excerpted (serialised seems overblown) in the Times which seems non-trivial, if not multiple. I don't think the crystal ball part of WP:NOT can apply; the book has been printed and if it does get recalled and/or pulped between now and the 28th, that too will be noteworthy and doubtless verifiable. The trivial facts contained in the article are verifiable. Not exactly enthused about the thing, rather advertorial for me, but there's no obvious policy-based reason to delete it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of cathy

Contested prod/prod2. Article about a fundraising website in aid of a cancer victim. The prod reason was "very worthy but, sadly, not notable", which sums it up well. WP is not for publicising fundraing efforts, however worthy. Prod notice deleted (twice) without comment; requests to discuss on the talk page not taken up. Mr Stephen 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was prod'ed & removed; someone else then prod'ed it (which, strictly, they should not have done) and later the prod was endorsed with a {{prod2}}. Mr Stephen 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The raw totals are 10-6 in favor of deletion. That comes pretty close to no consensus as it is. But several of the Delete comments were "per TheronJ", and TheronJ's comment was (originally, and even still after he changed his actual bolded summary) predicated on TransWikiing this to WikiSource, which is not an option. So it's not clear that some of the Delete comments envisioned completely destroying the information in the article as opposed to moving it to WikiSource. So I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. Herostratus 20:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Chart (height 150 - 174cm)

What it says in the title but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unencyclopedic. Might be accepted at Wikibooks but otherwise, surely this info. is available in numerous places on the web already? -- RHaworth 12:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Transwiki -- Wikisource has instituted policy against tables of reference data or calculated numbers. This would not be welcome there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BMI is only a guide and has limitations, but is has uses and is well recognised. Snowman 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's well recognised as bunk :-) Anyway, WP:INTERESTING is not policy whereas WP:NOT is. This is a primary source and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Guy 11:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BMI is used by NICE in the UK in their guidelines of medical (and surgical) management of certain conditions.
WP rules are not always as concrete as you suggest; it is a WP policy that any WP rules can be broken, providing that this is done in good faith to improve WP pages. Snowman 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! Wikipedia exists very much for people who may well be very intelligent but still have difficulty calculating their BMI! But I still say we don't need the article. -- RHaworth 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are indicating that BMI charts are only used to calculate an individual's BMI. BMI charts are also used to quickly see an individuals target weight or target weight range, which is much easier to do with a chart. Snowman 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old BMI chart on the BMI page, but no one has suggested that this should be deleted. Snowman 10:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS applies. Guy 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is in tutorial style and not giving-advice style. Snowman 09:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a free use image version of a BMI chart with appropriate contour lines for the boundaries between categories can be obtained or created. Getting into specific BMI values is a bit indiscriminate, and best left to calculators (though it would be wonderful if there were a way to wikicode such calculators) but a graphical chart with the contour lines of the BMI categories marked is useful and appropriate, and until a free use chart is available, this table is an acceptable alternative. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very easy to make a such a calculator written with java script on a WP page; but users' computers will need to be set to allow javascript actions or else alarm notices will spring up on the screen. Snowman 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have uploaded a "free" BMI chart to Image:BMIchart.png which uses WHO's cut-off values. It needs some colors and labels, but it's a start. Woseph 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn and no 'delete' !votes. --ais523 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie

This seems a bit suspicious; the interwikis are fake (at least the German one), it reads like an advert, and parts may be copyvio (although I'm not sure about that one). It also seems to be trying to promote the authors. --ais523 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Both seem to have been created and maintained by several users who seem to solely edit pages linked to the Author. If not a one-man vanity crusade, then extremely fishy at least. Onebravemonkey 12:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • not to delete, we got rid of those interwikis. this book is a bestseller with an unique history being based on scientific papers published in nature and physik A. the article is of importance for everyone interested in fashion and culture. Bkenner 12:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the interwiki links are correct or not, the book itself is genuine. I know this because I have it right here by the keyboard as I type this. ☺ ISBN 1841155683. As such, I can check the copyright violation. Yes, the entire "Preface" section of this article is copied word-for-word from the book.

    The majority of the article comprises a sample from the book and several quoted book reviews, written in the first person. This isn't an encyclopaedia article on a book. It's what one would expect to see at Amazon. There's probably an encyclopaedia article to write on the various ways to tie a tie. But that would be about the subject, not about the book on the subject. It would also grow, summary style, out of necktie. Uncle G 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The book passes WP:BK for at least having multiple non-trivial reviews by third parties, including "Scientific American" magazine. True, Google gives me only 850 or so general hits, which boils down to only 257 distinct hits, but there are several reviews in this lot beyond the dozens of book sales. There are also several listings of articles based on the book, which is apparently a derivative of knot theory, which in turn also meets WP:BK. Downsides are the article does appear to be an ad, and it lacks sources and verification in the article itself. The real problem I'm having however is in the nomination, which doesn't actually state grounds for deletion. "Seems a bit suspicious"? Reads "like" an advert. "May" be copyvio. One fake Interwiki? I have no idea how to check the Interwiki, that's my bad, but none of the politely-worded commentary shows any failure of WP policy and guidelines. Tychocat 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what seems to have happened is that the article was created, but then an anon went and dumped a load of spurious categories and interwikis on it, making it look a bit worse. I'll change my !vote. --ais523 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, sorry for the weaselly nom. It was one of those cases when I thought that community input was needed to help sort out or delete the article, but couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong. --ais523 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (nominator's !vote changed) Neutral per comments above. Requires cleanup and NPOVing. --ais523 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't create this page, but I am one of the authors of the book. It is true that too much material from external sources was added to this page. I have removed this. As an author I am not going to judge if this belongs on Wikipedia, but seeing as it is here I have taken the liberty to prune away excessive material to allow the article to grow more organically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas Fink (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (!vote changed again) Keep per cleanup. Another triumph for AfD! --ais523 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted at authors request. - Longhair 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Jackson (political candidate)

This article fails WP:NPOV and seemingly by the authors admission WP:AUTO (although the user is probably unaware of it as he seems to be a newbie) but most importantly it is not notable. He is a candidate at the forthcoming Victorian legislative election, 2006 with virtually no chance of being elected. There is precedence for deleting Victorian state election candidates - for example Luke Martin and the subject has done little else to be considered notable, except maybe this [25] but that on its own doesn't merit an article Teiresias84 12:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE This site has been cleaned up by an editor. All others should desist from petty political comment or bias. As a candidate for the election Mr Jackon deserves equal courtesy with every other candidate. That's democracy folks. If you don't understand this principle then you need to take a course or two in civics or politics. The proposed deletion is unwarranted because the article has now been edited by a professional journalist and editor, who happens to have close knowledge of Jackson. This information is relevant for voters. Jackson is well known to many other editors and journalists. He has been a columnist for a widely distributed periodical.

The article is no longer an autobiography. Vanity items have been edited ruthlessly, and it now conforms to the neutral POV policy. Please stay out of other people's electorates and what you think they need to know for this election, or your personal views on notability. Jackson's profile and recognition in this electorate is very high. Please would you now remove the autobiographical tag. Editor at large.144.138.196.103 10:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Bamboo

Article about a sort of white magic cult that pretends it can teach its followers supernatural self-defense. Now in all fairness the article attempts to debunk this a bit but all in all, this is a non-notable group. You do find a bit of Google hits but mostly because videos of practitionners have been circulated on the likes of YouTube and because the practitionners have been fairly vocal about their claims. No reliable sources seem to exist on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that The Amazing Randi and his Skeptics group sent someone there is a notable occurrence. The widespread dissemination of footage and response also adds to the notability of the group. --Scb steve 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NOT, lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about subject, no awards, no evidence of lasting contributions to the field of martial arts or magic. Google search turns up only 1460 hits for "yellow bamboo"+magic, which boils down to only 321 distinct hits. Google is not the final arbiter of notability, but these hits fail to show more than forum posts, press releases, and other admittedly widespread self-promotions. No question the group exists with verification, no such documentation or verification available for most of claims which fails WP:V. In regards to Scb steve, my best information shows that Randi did not go, a volunteer went instead who admitted he failed to conform to testing conditions agreed-to. Parenthetically, some Australian volunteers later took up the challenge with the following results. Of the four external links listed, three are YB sites, and the fourth is said to be a Bullshido.net investigation of YB claims. This site requires registration to enter. There is no "investigation" per se since this is a forum for martial arts discussion. Several links were passed around in this context, includng the aforementioned YouTube clip of the Australian test. Tychocat 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tychocat. (I know that's intellectually lazy but I wholeheartedly agree with them and there's no reason to repeat everything they said so well.) --Satori Son 22:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptive Software

Corporation fails criteria defined for notability in WP:CORP, as outlined on its talk page. Although the article is vastly better now than before and it has survived a prod, it is still not notable. (More information on the history of the discussion can be found on the creator's talk page) Storkk 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paularnhold 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)First, let it be known that I authored this entry. If I'm given time to defend this listing, I can assure you I'll have 2-3 relevant third party articles about the company and product by the end of 2006. I understand that you typically don't allow for an entry to be re-posted, however, I would like you to make an exception in this case.[reply]

Comment: if we have relevant citations by end of 2006, we'll have an article by end of 2006. Currently, it's not (yet) notable. I still haven't seen defense of that anywhere. If an article is recreated, you are correct: that is grounds for speedy deletion.... however, these things aren't done blindly. If an article is created and it's properly sourced, it probably won't be deleted. If it is, there's the Deletion Review that can be invoked.--Storkk 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wireborn

Originally proded with the rationale Blatant advert. New, unnotable company. 24 Ghits is dismal for a software company, even in South Africa. The creator of the article was Duff777 (talk · contribs) and the prod was removed by Mcduff777 (talk · contribs). Both users' sole contributions are to this article. The Google search for Wireborn returns 38 Ghits, all useless, and the search for biopedia comes up just as empty. I'm not even sure that company even exists. Even if it does, it is most definitely not meeting WP:CORP Pascal.Tesson 13:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Prayer

Non-notable website, vanity, advertising Wildthing61476 13:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What would need to be done to keep this entry?

First, that was a super quick response.

Second, I did not do it for advertising purposes I just added the site to a list of social networking sites on another page and though that I was supposed to create a page to go with it.

Third, At what point would it be ok to create a page for this site?

  • Comment Unfortunately, wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Websites must be mainstream, means to be known nationwide, to include a BBS with a hudge number of members, coverage by print media. Otherwise a website is called not noteable in terms of wikipedia. User:Yy-bo 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasThe nominated article was Speedied as spam from the publisher - David Gerard 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glass books

Fictional objects from a novel published in August 2006. While the novel is doing rather well (Amazon sales rank ca. 4,500), the Glass Books themselves are not notable enough for their own article, especially as there is a severe lack of reliable sources. It might seem advisable to turn this into an article about the novel, but that would amount to a complete rewrite (besides, I can't do it since there are not that many sources about the novel, either). Thus, delete. Huon 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar

This was listed for deletion by 217.121.193.200 but was incomplete with no reason given. However it seems that an earlier decision to delete was never carried out (see the first AFD). Yomanganitalk 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete The article has gone through a considerable amount of improvements here. But major issues have to be addressed here. For example, a google search on the organization this subject had established, have only about three or four unique hits. The closest NPOV website to this organization is this. The organization so far, did not achieve anything notable. Thus, this subject is the founder of a non-notable organization. A google search on his name shows about 500 hits. But there is a problem here. This is quite a common name which produces various different occupations on the same namesake of the subject in the article. And as far as I am aware of, the subject in question only has a few google hits which is consistent to the content of the article. Quite a number of hits also shows non-English websites as well. Considering these factors, it is quite difficult to verify the subject from a reliable source. However, there is no question in my research, that this subject exists and a founder of an organization. But is the subject encyclopedic in nature? That is the key question one must ask. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless anyone can find new evidence, this (vanity?)organization has no achievements or verifiable activities beyond advertising itself, and ditto for the person. Mereda 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was voted to be deleted before (and not carried out). The person discussed wrote his own entry. The organisation is not even listed on Wikipedia anymore (as it was deleted). Early 2005 "Rajeev Kumar" went trough alot of articles including, non relevant, links to his organisations page. When all where deleted this page was created. 217.121.193.200 17:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user comments above and pending any establishment of notability. --Antorjal 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strongly suggest that the page be protected after deletion to prevent re-creating the article. --Gurubrahma 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google hits are not satisfactory, since his name is quite a common one in India. Also, the users User:Rajeevk, User:Rajeevmass share their first name with the person. Seems to me like a vanity article, since these two have only contributed to the same article. --Ageo020 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eivaa Games

Contested prod about a non-notable company. MER-C 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ColumbusX

Contested prod about a non-notable MMORPG. Also contains crystal ball material. MER-C 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heim (onomastics)

Looks like a combination of OR, an unencyclopedic mishmash of indiscriminate information, and a recreation of info already at disambiguation pages.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although this article desperately needs cleanup, most of the information is not available elsewhere, as the links on the page all redirect back to this article. Could be useful once organized. - Runch 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Speedy delete' . Owen× ☎ 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noobs With Pride

A gaming clan with no real assertion of notability. Admin is of course welcome to speedy this as a non notable group (A7).--Andeh 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EmDrive and Emdrive

Note: please don't forget to sign your vote or comment using ~~~, and don't even think about multivoting! ---CH 01:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonnotable junk science. Please delete. --Pjacobi 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The experimental work appears to be occuring in a relatively open manner, initial experiments appear to show a positive result, the work is attracting interest from several notable sources and has been written up in popular science journals. My personal view is that the theory is wrong, conservation of energy and momentum are maintained, and the positive results so far are measurement error due to small differences between large numbers. BUT as long as the artcile gives fair weight within the wiki policy to both claims and doubts, there is no reason for us to pre-judge the science by removing it from view, and we should continue to reflect the debate. NeilUK 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked up relativity drive and was redirected to EmDrive. I found the article useful. –Gunslinger47 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing is being claimed in this invention that introduces any kind of 'new science', perpepual motion, zero-point energy or other quackery normally present in most junk science. Research appears to be fairly open, and the papers have been sent to a number of people. If the maths is wrong, then let us see why the maths is wrong, and not just dismiss what we do not understand (and I mean that in the strictest sense, not in the 'science does not know everything' sense). -- Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.173.74 (talk • contribs) (the Swindon anon from Swindon, England)
  • Keep. "Junk science" is a content dispute, not a notability criterion or assertion of nonsense. If there are questions of the scientific merit of this drive, then they should be addressed in the article, not simply relegated to the delete bin. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply making a bold claim doesn't add to the world's knowledge. Wikipedia's task is still documenting knowledge, not being a news portal. --Pjacobi 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a useful article regardless of whether the content will hold up to scientific scrutiny. Wikipedia contains other articles with dubious scientific merit like creationism,and Orgone box therapy, yet no one argues the merit of keeping such articles. This article provides infomation on a current scientific hot button. It gives both sides of the argument, it should be kept. - tnorwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.149.179 (talk • contribs) (the ptr.us.xo.net anon near Brooklyn, New York)
  • Keep , Merge and edit out the junk. It appears to be a notable subject, but taken way too seriously by the article. Deli nk 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a front page article of New Scientist. It's not question of whether this article is uselful or not, whether relativity drive is junk science or real science. In wikipedia, it'a all about NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research. Given the New Scientist article, this debate about deletion should be terminated. Vapour
  • Keep. Why not remove articles about cold fusion and Bigfoot. Scientific claims that create this much controversy are important regardless of their validity. 66.195.209.226 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)i55 (the Greensboro anon near Greensboro, NC; possibly bogus registration)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a "scientific claim". This is not generating "this much controversy", because its not controversial, and everyone agrees its junk. It should be deleted because it is not notable. WP should not contain articles on every bogus culture blip out there. In particular, there are many many many print magazines out there, and at this time, WP does not have an article about every topic that was ever discussed in a printed magazine. WP does not even have an article about every printed magazine ever published: I (+my parents) have current subscriptions to almost a dozen magazines, which have been in print for 40-50 years, for which there does not even exist a WP overview! Ergo, just because some topic appears in some magazine doesn't mean that the topic is "notable". Its got a lot lot lot farther to go before it becomes notable. I don't want to see WP filling up with drivel, because the drivel is unmaintainable. Its a crank magnet that invites dimwits with too much time on their hands to sap the energy and goodwill of capable WP editors, breeds hostile edit wars, and is generally harmful to the WP camraderie. Such articles are also harmful to WP's reputation as a consistent and accurate source of information. There is no good in this. linas 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who is supposedly against hostility on Wikipedia, your comment seems rather hostile in tone. –Gunslinger47 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, I'm hostile against the hostilists. I really hate them, because they bring out the worst in me. I resent having to show my hate. linas 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could merit a brief mention on a page called "List Of Prototype Devices That Claim To Break Very Well Established Laws Of Physics", but does not merit its own lengthy article. People are coming out with this nonsense all the time. None of these devices ever makes it to market, because none of them can work. Having a Wikipedia article on each impossible device is unmaintainable. --Strait 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It was in New Scientist, but they seem to publish articles on any old claim, regardless of how silly it is. The bottom line is that I don't see any peer-reviewed journal articles on this subject, so I don't think we have any reliable sources. -- SCZenz 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    major conferences by major bodies typically peer review papers to be presented at the conference. The article details such a paper, and doesn't detail an additional NASA one citing it with hope LinaMishima 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fake "science" like this is a dime-a-dozen. It is not worthy of an article. JRSpriggs 06:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you remove everything from the article that is unsourced original research, what little remains is not notable. --LambiamTalk 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, surely the article's source is the New Scientist article, the emdrive.com web site, and the online magazine articles listed in the external links section? Or am I confused about terminology here? Shawyer performed original research and published his unsourced original research in the form of his paper and his responses to interviews, and we're documenting those sources? I've done some background reading (WP:NOT) and I've not found anything that disqualifies this article, in my understanding of it. It's not original research (I gather it would be if Shawyer came here and wrote his own article). It's NPoV since we're writing it as a documentation of what Shawyer has claimed, not writing his claims as fact. Etc. Is there a concensus that it has to have a peer-reviewed journal article to be mentioned? I'd say that it should have a peer-reviewed journal article to be mentioned *as fact*, but at least in my contributions, I've tried to document it as a *claim* rather than a *fact*. Alaric 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep cover story of New Scientist 9th September 2006. Regardless of correctness or otherwise, it is most certainly notable and documented. Indeed, if it is pseudoscience, then one with such a strong publicity deserves to be fully documented as such. I notice no-one has yet posted any google scholar search details. Again, better to well-document pseudoscience than to ignore it if that's what this turns out to be. You can't be educated about something that's been ignored. LinaMishima 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    this paper, authored by NASA show they take this idea seriously - they cite the conference paper about this as footnote 71, encouraging further study into this matter. And again, pseudoscience cannot be used as a call for delete - it has been generally agreed that pseudoscience should be covered by wikipedia, as just because it's not real it doesn't mean that no-one wants to read about it. LinaMishima 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (a) The cover story makes it news, not knowledge. So it may be on topic for WikiNews, but nor for Wikipedia. (b) The abstract you cite is about Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, which we already cover well. --Pjacobi 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    the paper I cite, if you can actually read it, refers to this subject however, making it relevent. Right there are footnote 71, something they are interested in. LinaMishima 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the deletion arguments given above. Flash-in-the-pan media coverage just doesn't matter. Let it die a natural death. Soon enough, it will be replaced by the next FTL/perpetual motion/entropy reversing machine to feed ravenously upon the spotlight like a science-choking weed of stupidity. . . . Anville 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most/all of the arguments here involve notability and notes to the effect (a quote here) "WP should not contain articles on every bogus culture blip out there.". Well it's too late for that, there are fully developed articles on fictional characters introduced in passing in barely-known video games and single songs off of forgotten albums by forgotten bands, and I would argue this is more notable than any of those. Maury 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I may be biased in that I created the article, but the reason I created it was to document Shawyer's claim, to add it to such existing articles as Dean drive, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Alcubierre drive, Krasnikov Tube, etc. I predict that many people, hearing of the EmDrive from New Scientist or other sources, will come to Wikipedia expecting an unbiased article of the claim and counter-claims. Alaric 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it's crap science (and it is) doesn't mean it should be deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be junk, but it's well publicised junk, and so I came to Wikipedia looking for the details of why and how. We have articles on perpetual motion devices right back to the magic wheel, discussing the history surrounding their conception and explaining why they don't work - all of which can be done in a verifiable manner. This one is notable because of its news coverage. The argument that we can't maintain an article for every such device that generates such coverage is flawed, because clearly people are willing to maintain this article - and this ain't paper. MartinLing 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying the article doesn't need some serious junk removal, just that deleting it is not the right answer to that. MartinLing 09:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: Comparisons were made to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Alcubierre drive, Krasnikov Tube, but these are subjects discussed in science journals, not in the popular press only (including popular science press). Also please note, that even the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program which was wide open to crazy ideas, had to set a bar, to limit the size of wastepaper basket needed. The EmDrive would fall under the Common Error List and not be accepted. Finally note, that the Dean Drive operating on such a common error is (marginally notable) for the large and continued interest it generated. This is not the case for the EmDrive. --10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    As I have already pointed out, NASA actually are looking into this one, and it is most certainly not on the common error list. It has had a conference paper, and continued interest has been shown by the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. It upsets me to persistantly see people failing to read up fully on the matter before commenting on AfDs. LinaMishima 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that NASA is looking into this. There is, in fact, no evidence that anyone important is looking into it. There is a claim by the inventor that people are "interested", but where's the verification from those people? A quick look at the website emdrive.com shows just how much interest there seems to be in the concept. As for the "common error list", if it has to break a law of physics to work, it doesn't work. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if you are an IEEE subscriber or have access to Athens, take a look at this paper. The abstract itself does not detail this, but it's listed within the paper as something to explore. And in this case, they are suggesting that it does not break a law of physics, it's an application of relativity. However all this matters not - if it is real, we cover it, and if it is psuedoscience, major psueoscience is something we should and already do cover! Indeed, that common error list is a case in point - science does not ignore psueodoscience, it gives rational counter arguments to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinaMishima (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This article for me gives the most balanced account of this topic I've found on the web. It's certainly notable, it's not self promotional. There are only facts in this article, it is fact that this guy has made this machine, and it is fact that he has made certain claims about his results. This article gives fair weight to claims and doubts and it is not for any wikipedian to pre-judge the science, we can wait for history to do that.--JohnBirch 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason to delete this article, but I do think it's very important to keep it updated until there has been time for independent testing to establish if the claims are valid. If the claims are shown to be incorrect then we may have an interesting case history of self-deception in the sciences. Otherwise we will have some delightful new physics to examine. Neville Macaulife, nevillemac@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.74 (talk • contribs) (an aol proxy)
  • Keep. If we burned books containing what was considered nonsense at the time of publishing we would have never broken what were considered to be the 'laws' of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.77.90 (talk • contribs) (the rochd3.qld.optusnet.com.au anon from the Brisbane area
  • Comment: I am very disappointed that New Scientist has been publishing this kind of wild-eyed story. The basic problem with the article is seen in this passage: "since it violates well-established principles such as the conservation of momentum. One potential weakness of the theoretical basis given for the EmDrive is that it may not be valid to use the group velocity of a wave in a calculation of the radiation pressure; however, if Shawyer's experimental evidence is indeed valid, then this would appear not to be a problem." The problem with this is that these three considerations do not all carry equal weight! Violation of conservation of momentum is just about the gravest imaginable theoretical objection to any alleged engineering device; this objection makes any alleged "experiment verification" of an apparently small claimed effect (recall the alleged purpose is to adjust spacecraft orbits) extremely suspect. Another major problem with articles like this and comments like some of those above: in many previous cases, inventors looking to attract private capital have made vastly overblown claims of stated interest by Boeing, NASA, etc. Regarding the (now defunct) Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Marc Millis recently posted a comment in sci.physics.research deprecating some wild claims by John Hutchison anti-gravity fanatics in the Wikipedia which Lina should probably examine. I have often seen amateurs interested in "inventors" react with tremendous enthusiasm to wild claims which sell some glossy magazines but quickly die. For example, the article on Franklin Felber's claims was deleted some time back and not one nay vote was raised in protest. ---CH 02:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is true, this does not deal with the fact that one cannot educate people on something that one chooses to ignore. It is for this reason that wikipedia must cover psuedoscience. LinaMishima 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point, but I'm concerned about our ability to educatte people properly, and I'm with CH in being disappointed. The problem is that our "reliable sources," frankly, are failing us; New Scientist keeps publishing "fair and balanced" articles on subjects that should either be either solidly criticized or ignored. The scientific community ignores them, and then these bozos create a controversy to keep the magazine exciting, so our only source is the misleading New Science article. Siiiigh. -- SCZenz 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add some relevant information to my previous comment:
  1. Science fiction author Greg Egan (who happens to be a physicist by training) has just posted (in the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research, which traditionally was devoted to discussions by research physicists but unfortunately is now dominated by enthusiasts with little background in physics) a telling indictment of the New Scientist article on which the article under discussion in this AfD was based in the newsgroup sci.physics.research, which I hope everyone will read forthwith! In particular, note that Egan makes the same points that I, SCZenz, and others have made: in the physics community, New Scientist is increasingly regarded as the scientific analogue of The National Enquirer; contrary to the impression left by the cited article, the so-called EM drive appears to be firmly in the arena of pseudoscience, as suggested by the fact that the "inventor's" claims for this device would appear to violate conservation of momentum,
  2. Several recent New Scientist articles, which in my opinion should never have been published, including the one critiqued by Egan, have been uncritically cited at the WIkipedia. While I understand why several voters here have stated that they feel the article should be kept but neutralized, I feel these voters underestimate the tenacity of the POV-pushing users, and I respectively request that in the near future they spend some time assisting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience members in trying to neutralize some older problem articles as well as EM drive, which appears very likely to become a new problem article in the physics pages here:
    1. Cover article "Take a leap into hyperspace", New Scientist, 07 January 2006 describes a supposed "rocket driven by quantum gravity", allegedly ascribed to a so-called"Heim quantum theory for space propulsion" (no such theory is known to mainstream physics), and apparently mentions the so-called "EM drive"; see Talk:Heim theory for endless contentious wrangling with (in the first case) a user, Hdeasy (talk · contribs), who publishes fringe papers on Heim theory, which is generally regarded in the physics community as cranky; see also numerous letters suggesting why the editors may be impelled by the low tastes of certain readers to publish such Dreck,
    2. An item in New Scientist, 17 December 2005 apparently mentions a so-called ""negative matter propellantless propulsion"; see for example Talk:Reactionless drive, Talk:Dean drive, Talk:Hutchison effect, Talk:John Hutchison,
    3. An item in New Scientist, 27 October 2001 mentions a so-called "Dark Energy Metric Engineering Exotic Propulsion"; see for example Talk:Harold E. Puthoff, Talk:Stochastic electrodynamics, Talk:Bernard Haisch; see also a review of Haisch's book The God Theory in New Scientist, 03 June 2006, and the "Breaking News" item on Haisch/Rueda from New Scientist, 14 August 2005,
    4. Earlier items apparently described putative "black budget secret government interest" regarding the so-called "Podkletnov effect", which appears to have been greatly overstated; see Talk:Eugene Podkletnov for contentious discussion.
Again, my point is that those voting for us to "to the right thing" and produce articles which describe dubious fringe proposals in WP:NPOV fashion should resolve to get involved themselves in helping Wikpedia users with expertise in advanced physics to keep all these articles in line with WP:NPOV. To a large extent, I feel that users without such expertise need to take the word of those with such expertise about what the mainstream views are, bearing in mind WP:AGF with regard to our fair-mindedness.---CH 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need articles on every perpetual motion machine, nor on every sensationalist New Scientist story. It is a travesty that there even has to be discussion about this sort of nonsense: it should be removable on sight. If the thing turns out to be somehow valid, it can come back when it is properly vindicated (but that would undoubtedly cause a few more ripples anyway).Byrgenwulf 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Nn junk science. Perhaps should be added to the list of perpetual motions machines, but not worth a seperate article. Salsb 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This research has not been published in a peer reviewed format, nor has it been independently verified. Given that it seems to violate one of the most fundamental principles of physics, this would constitute an extraordinary claim, which (as the aphorism goes) requires extraordinariy evidence. This extraordinary evidence is currently completely lacking. One of the arguments used to justify keeping it in wikipedia is that it was a cover story in New Scientist. However, we have to keep in mind the different goals of the wikipedia project (encyclopedic in scope, but also in quality) and a science magaizine like New Scientist (profit and increased interest in science). So, although this research project *might* be notable for a science magazine, it is not yet of encyclopedic quality. Edhubbard 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Made the 9 September 2006 cover of New Scientist, an international science magazine with a circulation of over 160,000 and a worldwide readership of over 670,000. With that level of exposure, it deserves coverage in Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of the research—not to be asserted as truth, but to be described, factually and neutrally. By the way, this AfD was announced at WikiProject Rational Skepticism, WikiProject Pseudoscience, and WikiProject Physics, where EmDrive is called "another of those pesky pages". Tim Smith 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sick of New Scientist being brought up in every AfD discussion on some borderline subject...in this ongoing AfD, it is being used to establish the "notability" of a manufacturer of tin-foil hats. Seriously. Frankly, this "EmDrive" is "another of those pesky pages" which pose a grave danger to the integrity of Wikipedia as a real encyclopaedia. And we are not an archive of New Scientist back issues, as far as I know. Byrgenwulf 21:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our standard for deletion is "notability", not "accuracy". Surely the very size of this AfD vote demonstrates its notability. Also, Comment, from what I've read it is not claiming to defy conservation of energy, as the cavities' q-value decreases sharply in accelerating frames of reference (i.e. energy disapears from the chamber and appears as kinetic energy). On the other hand, while I suppose it to be plausible, I must admit that when I first read it my thoughts were "What? Surely that's a misprint and they meant micro-Newtons per kilowatt!". -- Whitepaw 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After seeing the NewScientist article linked from another website, I instantly came to Wikipedia to try and get the full story, the controversy, etc. It's notable, and even if it isn't accurate, the fact that it's been generating attention is worthy of being included in the encylclopedia. Mark it as a "Current Event" if you will. If the science doesn't work, we'll record the EmDrive as being a failure. If it does work... well... then that'd be awesome. But either way, there needs to be an article. For those of you voting delete because you call it psuedoscience... well... then shouldn't you be able to find sources to refute the claims made in the article? That'd be a service to us all... showing how it doesn't work. Fieari 05:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The number one source suggesting that this is junk science (which is different from pseudo-science) is that it violates the well-established princliple of conservation of energy. This in itself suggests that the claims here would require extraordinary evidence, and as of yet, there is nothing published in reliable, respected, peer-reviewed journals. Not a single article. Just an interview in New Scientist, and a single conference presentation. We have to get away from the idea that New Scientist is in the business of only publishing well-established scientific facts. As there is nothing published yet in favor of this effect, other scientists have not yet been able to evaluate and examine the claims. To refute a claim you need to be able to properly examine it, which scientists cannot do on the basis of a New Scientist article alone. Edhubbard 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it doesn't matter if the article is good science or not. It could be a load of complete horseshit. We don't delete horseshit if it's notable. We have an article on perpetual motion don't we? You'll note that we don't say perpetual motion is possible, but we do have an article on it. That's why I'm voting keep. Because it's NOTABLE, even if it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. It's notable enough that aparently the US goverment has either been bamboozled by it, or is jumping onto the next big thing. Either way, that's pretty notable. And when the results come in, we can either report on how the US government picked up on a peice of junk science, or how they're going to develop it to make spaceships or flying cars or whatever. Either way, the article needs to stay. It's only the content that needs to change. Fieari 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment wasn't so much related to the vote for deletion (although it's relevant there, too) but mostly in reply to your comment "For those of you voting delete because you call it psuedoscience... well... then shouldn't you be able to find sources to refute the claims made in the article? That'd be a service to us all... showing how it doesn't work." The point I was making above is that you are asserting notability based on an idea that has no peer reviewed publications, but then want the nay-sayers to provide the counter-evidence. At this point, the burden of proof is not on the nay-sayers, but rather on the EmDrive proponents, who must provide the extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims... that's how science works. Also, citing something doesn't necessary mean that NASA has been bamboozled. Scientists will often cite competing data or hypothesis to point out how their results contradict the articles they cite. Edhubbard 19:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand a little on Edhubbard's comment, since this is something that's been bothering me lately. Some things are just nonsense, be they pseudoscience, junk science, or whatever. Many of them are so transparently rubbish that no-one bothers publishing a peer-reviewed, serious article pointing out exactly why they are rubbish, leaving this work to the bloggers, "skeptic sites", etc. However, if the nonsense in question has a Wikipedia article, it too often proves impossible to use the article to "educate" people as to why the subject is nonsense, because there exist no "reliable sources" giving criticism of it, resulting in all criticism being reverted as "original research" or in the name of "NPOV". Even if the criticism added amounts merely to the application of generally well-accepted scientific principles, the "citation needed" tags spring up all over it, and it gets removed eventually, or forms a horrendous drain on whatever poor editor volunteers to shepherd the article). Hence the article ends up being a hagiography of the nonsense, which simply does not do for an encyclopaedia. Since Wikipedia is not a science-related news blog, there is no reason to report on phenomena which have not generated a decent amount of material in the peer-reviewed literature, and hence EmDrive doesn't yet have a place here. Byrgenwulf 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As cover story of New Scientist (circulation 163,000), this is either (i) an example of one of the largest pseudo science scams of the 21st century or (ii) correct. Either way it is a noteworthy topic and is currently the most visible source of a balanced article for those who are sceptical of the claims. 81.79.136.112 07:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This need not be either pseudo-science or correct. It could be a stastical artifact, measurement error, or many other possible factors that haven't been possible to examine yet, since as I noted in my vote for delete above, there are *no* peer reviewed articles on this effect. None. New Scientist is not in the business of providing peer review or scientific examination, and they may be guilty of promoting what turns out to be an honest error (at best). It may turn out be like cold fusion, another seemingly impossible claim that does not generally hold up to closer scientific scrutiny, and which has been rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Until there is at least some sort of peer review of the theory and experiments, we cannot even be sure that there is not a simple math error here (this applies, too, to the comment above by Fieari; how can we evaluate something that has only been "published" in the sciene equivalent of the Enquirer?). Do we need an article in wikipedia for every stastical artifact or poorly controlled experiment that makes it into the pages of New Scientist, without a single peer reviewed article? Edhubbard 07:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is interesting, in much the same way the Dean_Drive article is. It presents the fact that the science behind the EmDrive is contrary to current scientific principles.Whale September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply because it may be pseudoscience (and if so, one that has convinced a number of goverment agencies) doesn't mean it warrants an automatic delete. Without any clear and obvious proof that a) it does wildly violate laws of physics, and b) no one but an extreme lunatic fringe takes it seriously, it appears to be generating enough interest to warrant an article. That doesn't mean the article has to be an endorsment, just that it should be a source of information for anyone who reads about it and is interested in finding more. Icelight 02:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons (a) If this is a real science, it should be kept. If a pseudoscientist succeeded to convince NASA in importance of his "research" which violates one of the fundamental laws of physics, such an unusual story certainly should be kept. (b) Anything which draws attention of many people deserves an article. Cover story in New Scientist means that lots of people know about this issue, so it deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist League of Ingria

Inflammatory manifesto of a non-notable chauvinistic organisation. A curious detail: Russian names such as Ivangorod are deliberately spelled in Finnish. Ghirla -трёп- 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Net mlm

Non notable neologism Dweller 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Redirect to the flight is optional. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Valenzuela

A mechanic involved in the ValuJet Flight 592 disaster, apparently charged with a crime of conspiracy to provide false testimony. Although the ValuJet investigation is obviously noteworthy of inclusion, I don't think that a biography of a mechanic is needed. The alleged crime is not of sufficient notoriety; it's not as if he alone is responsible for downing the ill-fated DC-9, and I do not think he meets WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French (euphemism)

I hereby vote for the deletion of this non-encyclopedic, unsourced, unquoted, piece of... and pure nonsense created, and filled, by a single editor User:Brookie. This is not even an article but the pure delirium of a kind of francophobe (lit. "who fears the French") teen watching a comedy kid TV show, the Simpsons, and trying to expand it to an encyclopedic article, without references nor quotes. Everyone can create the same fake "article" and exchange the "French" term by "English" and you have the anglophobe version English (euphemism). Since, just like the French are nicknamed the Frogs, the Brits are named the "Roastbeef" by the French in reference to William Hogarth's "O! The Roast Beef of Old England" painting but you won't find a such "article" in the French wiki. The grudge of the British against the French can be tracked back to their defeat at the 100 Years War whose aftermaths are still living in the English Wikipedia "Result: Costly but decisive French victory", not even WWII nor any other wars are "COSTLY BUT", "costly to win" or "costly to admit"? But there's no need to feed this nonsense any longer. Churchill supported the Fighting French during WWII and the US secretly backed-up the French during the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, even though President Jacques Chirac was against the 2003 intervention in Irak, he secretly sent the elite French SAS commandos to support the US in Afghanistan.Cliché Online 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is an important subject and is frequently dealt with in language reference books - what an extraordinary rant the above is! BTW I counted at least 14 other registered users contributing to this article - as well as various unregistered users - so to claim that I was the sole contributor (not that that is in any way relevent anyway) is quite wrong. The above user also has not declared his interest as a French Wikipedian ....Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. BTW I have not declared I listen to We Are The Only Friends We Have feat. American Hearts by Piebald, it might be relevant as well. Cliché Online 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Edmondson

Kate Edmondson currently doesn't deserve an entry. All she has done is presented two releatively minor shows.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uranusx2006 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 September, 2006 (UTC).

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derry Brownfield

Non notable radio host. Peephole 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I tried following the links to deletion review to know avail what happened to the discussion on this??? The guy is relevant and has been syndicating his show since 1973 ! The "radio station" mentioned above by Punkmorten is ONE network he is on (GCN)(he is also on RBN-Republic Broadcasting www.rbnlive.com and other stations that pick up his show as listed even on wikipedia which dont even now exist but Derry is on the air every day !)- [[26]] It might be irrelivant to those who think everything that means anything originates in NYC or Hollyweird. 209.209.140.21 07:31, 18 November 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jacoby

No claim of notability beyond receiving one award; the award itself seeming oddly non-notable with only 109 Google hits [27]. Delete per WP:BIO. Haakon 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete despite sockstuffing the discussion. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cards by Tobi

Contested prod. Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. alphaChimp(talk) 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Price

This looks like nothing but a vanity page to me. It also contains plenty of vandalism.Mapetite526 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctican dollar

A so-called "private currency" which seems to be nothing more than a commercial enterprise. Limited Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article itself says it is unofficial currency. Are we in the business of promoting these scams? Non-notable and non-encyclopaedic for me. Delete I@n 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good logic, I've never heard of it so it must be fake. --Kurt 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable? I hope this has convinced you it is notable.
  • Advertising or promoting a worthless and meaningless novelty product? I wrote most of it and I obviously do not work for the Antarctica Overseas Exchange Office. Wikipedia has articles of commercial products that are notable within their domains.
  • proof of exsistance? There are pictures and external links.
  • hoax/scam? The article and the official website clearly states that it is not a legal tender. It is what it is. This is not a hoax/scam.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
Therefore, it meets the requirement of WP:CORP --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, you've convinced me of it's notability (articles prove notability, the previous vendors pages did not). However, I do plan on rewriting the first sections of the article, as I feel it currently reads as an advertisement and could be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. - Runch 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intertron

Even if this is a notable neologism, it's still a dictionary definition and unlikely to ever be expanded beyond that state. Powers T 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 25, 1988

Although I can't find the specific clause in the Manual of Style, I know this sort of article is usually deleted upon sight. Plus, it contains no notable content whatsoever. Runch 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Unsigned comment was discounted. Xoloz 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 Tenths Motorsport

Non-notable internet forum. No independent, non-trivial, third-party sources available. Recury 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: On the point that ten-tenths is non-notable - this is incorrect. Tenths is one of the biggest internet forums for motorsport alongside such sites as Motorsportforums and Speed channel's forums. Tenths has previously had its own radio show run by Globecast Radio, and has a number of high profile members who obviously give tenths notority - including Bobby Rahal, Martin Haven, Robert Huff and Paul O'Neill just to name a few.
On the point that no third part sources are available - firstly I ask that any decision on this is postponed as the person that created the page is currently unavailable, and it would be unfair not to give him chance to name any sources.
Secondly, the only element that is unsourced is the history to the site. The other sections (eg. the present content of the site) is easily verified just by looking at the site and seeing what is there, a primary source which is therefore undisputable.
Thirdly, I state that internet forums are extremely difficult to find sources for - on the whole the only source can be the site itself. There are many other examples on wikipedia where internet forums are also without independent sources to clarify their origins, and to delete them all for this reason would destroy the category. (for examples, Christian Forums, E-Sangha has no sources as regards history, X-Entertainment has no independent sources - these being three examples from three random selections from the category list) Asp 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles on internet forums on Wikipedia right now because many are created, but many are deleted as well. Almost none of them pass WP:V for the reason you point out: there just aren't many of those kinds of sources available for all but the most popular forums. The policy is pretty clear on this however, saying, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Recury 13:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A full deletion of the entire article would be a severe step for just one section that is presently uncited. Suggest therefore tagging article appropriately until the editor who created it can justify his sources, or alternatively another editor finds a source, as per the WP:V procedure. Asp 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be exactly in line with Wikipedia policy. The topic has no independent, non-trivial, third-party sources, so there should not be an article on the topic. Recury 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FromWP:DEL:
Can't verify information in article
 Follow the procedure on Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If that doesn't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted.

{{cleanup-verify}}
This article has not yet been given opportunity to test if it is truly "unverifibiable", by terms of the WP:V : "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}."Asp 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? I am following the procedure on WP:V, I've already quoted it twice to you. The burden is on you to find some independent, non-trivial, third-party sources or else it is safe to assume that there aren't any, in which case WP should not have an article on this topic. It isn't that complicated. Recury 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I accept that at the moment the article does not have an independent source, it is not safe to assume that there aren't any until it has been listed as unsourced for a reasonable time to allow an editor a chance to provide references. That is why I am proposing that the article is kept but tagged appropriately to give this chance to happen. If that doesn't work, then we can come back here. Asp 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD lasts for at least 5 days, that is pretty reasonable. If multiple good sources are found before then, then obviously I'd consider withdrawing the nomination. But like I said, the burden is on you guys. Recury 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notability could well be established - a google search does provide many results, famous users exist, above mentioned radio project is a definite media mention, and if article is verified the sites involvement in developing "skins" is a notable feature in itself.
Notability is really only a secondary issue here. The main issue is the verifiability concerns. Recury 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is a major problem with this article in general, however, time should be given to see if verifability can be established - particularly as it is reported above that article creator is unavailable and he will obviously be best placed to add citations if possible. Therefore agree with tagging for cleanup, but only for minimal period (2-4 weeks), and if no progress is made to then relist for deletion.--81.102.182.17 12:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the original author is here or not doesn't matter. If the forum is really as notable as you guys claim then anyone should be able to find good sources for this easily. And (I'm going to go out on another limb here and assume that no one has written a book about your forums) how long does doing a few internet searches take? A few minutes? Half an hour tops if you're slow? Recury 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I see nothing wrong with ten-tenths having an article on wikipedia, but it should make sure that some of the facts are correct in the article. For example it says that ten-tenths was one of the few sites 'approved' to use the new vBulletin software. Which is incorrect, anybody could use the software as long as they paid for it, no 'approval' necessary. Also Craig Antill didn't come up with the idea of co-branding, MotorsportForums.com was co-branding its own forums for approx 9 months before ten-tenths launched its own version and then only when Jelsoft (the makers of vBulletin) included it as a standard software feature. (Declaration: I'm the owner of Motorsport Forums which could be deemed a competitor site thus I'm reluctant to edit the article itself I could be seen not to be neutral in the matter)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween yard

Tis article has been recreated after an AfD debate held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted yard Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeleton garlands. The author has recreated the article. The same nomination applies: I prodded this article and the author removed the prod, as is their right. Nonetheless it fails on so many levels. The simplest is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The concept of a "Haunted Yard" is simply not a topic, disambiguation page or not, that belongs in any encyclopaedia I have ever come across. Yes, search for it in Google and there are hits, of course there are, but you also get hits for "Yellow Sofa", which we do not have an article on. In other words, Ghits notwithstanding, it is really trivial and deserves to go Note - I copied the wrong orogonal AfD Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It and the other articles are entirely trivial, and discussion with the creator has failed to establish agreement, so I am placing them here for full peer review and comment. During discussions it has been suggested by another editor that these articles may attract link spam as Halloween approaches Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it now, or a verification of the nominations against WP:WP, trolling and stalking, talk page abuse, may lead to a request for comment. User:Yy-bo 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an exact repost of the prior article? Because if it is, then it can be speedied as a repost of properly deleted information. If this is not the case, then count me in to delete. Indrian 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no access to the original text. All I can say is that it is substantially similar, and similarly lacking in anything notable. Since it was the author who speedied it I think I am right that it has to come to AfD, but am happy to be corrected. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this is now getting complex. The author has overwritten the article with another article substantially different in nature, removing the AfD banner. Please see the edit history. I have reinstated the banner but feel that I need to leave this to an experienced admin to sort out. Thus I will only take further part in this AfD on request of an admin in case an edit or revert war should start. While this may be considered vandalism I do not intend myself to place a warning on their talk page. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, that is, to correct the nomination. Well, boy did I mess thatt up! There were quite a few of these. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Fiddle Faddle, i restored to the article version which has been newly created, based on the previous articles. I considered it as vandalism to shorten the article this far. Please see article history. Your deletion nomination refers to the wrong discussion. Guess this is obvious. User:Yy-bo 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nothing called a "Halloween yard." Some people decorate their yards on Halloween, (and how they do so is adequately covered at Halloween) but we don't have an article called Christmas living room for the same reason we shouldn't have one here. That reason is that the concept of a yard during Halloween is not considered seperate enough from the general concept of Halloween in the same way that, say, a Jack O'Lantern is. Recury 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not considered separate enough" by who? Actually, we do have quite a strong precedent for this, with articles such as Christmas stocking, Christmas card, Christmastime greetings, Wassailing, Mistletoe, Christmas cookies, Christmas cake, Christmas ham, Christmas pudding, Christmas cracker, Twelve-dish Christmas Eve supper, Christmas dinner, Yule log, Secret Santa, Santa Claus parade, Christmas village, Christmas carol, Christmas ornament, Christmas tree, Christmas lights, Christmas pickle, Nativity scene, and American Christmas traditions, just to name a few. (Yes, there are many more.) I don't see anyone rushing to merge these articles into Christmas. I think it's a no-brainer that Halloween lawn displays are a tradition worthy of separate treatment. wikipediatrix 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Christmas living room though? Recury 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since that phrase is something you just contrived for the sake of argument, there's no analogy. "Halloween yard" is a well known phenomena (gets 34,300 Google hits. "Christmas living room" is not. (gets 1210 hits). wikipediatrix 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is pretty obvious: Holiday + AreaThatIsDecorated is not a valid topic for an article. The decorations themselves are valid topics, but this is not. Recury 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Halloween_yard&oldid=75533250 Afd was for this version, original article. Can't just shorten an article to nothing, then nominate for Afd. User:Yy-bo 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is quite normal to clean up an article during the AfD to bring it to an acceptable standard. McGeddons version is a lot more likely to survive than your own. What you call nothing I call concise. Concise is good. David D. (Talk) 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Blood

Non notable radio host/conspiracy theorist. Peephole 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Communications Network

Non notable radio. Peephole 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete browsing the website I see that GCN appears to have all of ten employees, receives 3000 visits per day and transmits about 25GB per month. Lets assume that they broadcast 24 or 48kbps (which seems to be about what most iTunes radio stations broadcast) 25GB * 8 = 200gb/month divided by 30 = 6.66gb per day / 24 = 277mb per hour / 60 = 4629 kb / minute = 77kbps. So at any given time only 1-3 people are listening to this station online. If we assume that every listener listens for one hour than each listener is receiving 86400kb @24kbps and 172800 @48kbps, this would give the station 1150 or 2300 listeners a month. (I'm hoping my assumptions here are correct, please note this is a "back of the envelope" calculation). GabrielF 18:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising Hello32020 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it's given a total rewrite, otherwise delete. GCN has actual radio affiliates, though I'm not sure how many (a couple of few dozen?), so it's a legit US radio network, even if the vast majority of its programming consists of kookery. But the article cannot stand in its current form, as it's just a spam stub. --Aaron 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Could you please provide more information on radio affiliates? I browsed through the GCN website - it looks like they broadcast on satellite and shortwave but I couldn't find any information on actual radio stations that carry GCN. GabrielF 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I couldn't find any affiliate list on the GCN site, but it's SOP for American radio networks to not offer a full affiliate list to the public, as most of the stations that would be on it only carry one or two of the network's shows. I went to some individual show websites instead; here's "The Joe Mazza Show' listing 12 stations [34], the "Bobby Likis Car Clinic" (claims 100+ affiliates plus a slot on Sirius) [35], and of course Alex Jones (listing 42 stations if my quick eyeballing of the page is correct) [36]. These GCN people may fly under the American media/pop culture radar for the most part, but they are out there and have real stations airing their programming. As such, I think the network probably meets WP:N. --Aaron 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The famous gangster

Article claims notability, but searching Google, I've had difficulty pulling up information on this artist. This might be because Slovenian rap is not a huge marketplace, however I still do not feel he meets WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: LOL, I wish we could keep this on its comedy value alone. His "music videos" are just him videotaping stuff from the side of his car while playing 50 Cent music over it. If this is Slovenia's most famous gangster rapper, then he must be Solvenia's only gangster rapper. Seriously though, I think this fails the policy on notability and needs to be deleted. - Runch 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ha ha. Danny Lilithborne 00:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Some thoughts from the author:

Wildthing61476 and Runch: you are correct, Slovenian rap is still very small and is still evolving. Mr.B has not yet published his CD, so looking him up on Slovenian web shops will be useless. You mentioned, that there were very little information on Mr.B, i agree with that totally, that is why i started to write this article - i summarised (yes with my own words :) ) his interview for a Slovenian tabloid and included my own interview (most of it is in the article). To get some more info, please try googling for "lordbebo" - without the quotations (lordbebo is a second alias from Mr.B). He went by that nickname when he started, so many people still use that name, and some know him only by that name. He is extremely popular on internet boards, beacouse he had published some of his writings, lyrics and music freely on internet, and boards are the best place for people for exchange toughts on his work, not to mention that 95% of topics you will find were not opened by Mr.B but his fans that copy pasted his works.

Runc said, that his videos are just him driving in a car and playing 50 cent. I partially agree, but only the first two videos are made like that. As i have written, he got some more money for the third video, so semi-proffesional cameras etc. were used. And i don't think he drives around and plays 50 cent in the last one :).

Also if you check the counter on the page where his videos were uploaded, you will see, that it has literally thousands of views (first video - 2227 views, second video - 6052 views and the third one only 550 views, if you do not believe the numbers, please check the links provided in my article!). But these videos are the low quality ones, the quality was reduced, so that these pages can host them. The bigger files are hosted on private servers, but there are no counters, so i cannot say for sure how many downloads. Maby you will think that approximately 9 thousands of views is not much, but it is in my land with only 2 million population.

Also his video and music was published on a DVD and CD, that comes with a computer magazine called Joker ( if i am not mistaken, it is the most popular computer magazine in Slovenia, i will provide the number of subscribers later after i contact the editor of the magazine). If their website could provide excact informations on what is on the dvd i would gladly provide you the proof, but sadly he had fallen under the "misc" section, so there is no explicit mentioning of him on the homepage. I will call my friend, so he can make some screenshots of the dvd, to prove that i am not lying about that.

Danny Lilithborne: When you can, please provide some reasons on deleting the article i will try to answer them as best i can :)

Worker21, the writer of the Wikipedia article on Mr.B

I have just recieved a screenshot that my friend made. It was on the runnable CD that was added to the latest computer magazine Joker, the picture can be found here http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5478/gospodarwicale2.jpg (if translated to English: MP3 Gospodar Wiča, that was made by a Slovenian rapper Mr.B). I still have to contact my other friend that has the DVD edition (they come seperately, depends on the type of subsctription), the video is on the DVD. I am still waiting for the response, from the magazine editor, on the number of subscribers for this magazine. If it is necessary i will add these pictures to the article as well

Worker21, author of the article

  • Delete. The artist doesn't meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. It requires at least two albums released on major record labels or a charted hit- neither of these have been achieved. One tabloid interview doesn't meet criteria of multiple non-trivial independent sources. Maybe some other time when he becomes famous and notable, but not now.--Wafulz 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


delete him because he is a fake and he only made 3 songs which he didn't even seriously think about selling. also the picture of him on the first page of a tabloid has been faked because the text next to it refers to something completely different. i also doubt anybody who is not a member of the mn3njalnik forum knows about him.

  • Comment from author:
I've decided to completely edit my arcticle and mostla gather all proofs that Mr.B is not just some random dude which thinks that it would be really cool to be on Wikipedia :). By proofs i mean scanning the other magazine he appeared in, which i did not know until recently. Thanks to Runch that pointed out a few mistakes i made unintentionally ( the article is titled the famous gangster but shuld be mr.b oufcourse :) ). And i will read the article about musicians on wikipedia more thoroughly.

And a little comment to the anonymous comment: you say he made 3 songs? if i know rap, he only made one song (only one is mentioned in the article, the others will surely be in the next and improved article about mr.b), the rest are from 50 cent. But maby i am mistaken, *rolls eyes* :). Any you say he is only known on one board called mn3njalnik? Use google please, before writing such nonsene.

I will answer other accussations from the dearest anonymous comentator when i return from school :)

Worker21

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punamusta (anarchism)

del, nonverifiable. A youth wing of equally nonnotable Anarchist League of Ingria allegedly established in 2006. Punamust/punamusta meand "red-black" and gives some google hits, but most irrelevant. `'mikka (t) 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Tweedale

Appears to be a vanity article (created by Rtweedale) of a nn actor; fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Victoriagirl 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic energy

opinion/OR/viewpoint not presented as encyclopedic explanation CobaltBlueTony 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. No mention of critical acclaim or awards for plays and productions sufficient to warrant notability. Wikipedia isn't a bank for notability earning interest over time, it is a record of the process of achieving notability or a description of a notable subsstance, artifact, process, achievement, etc. Awards, prizes, critical notices, etc are required to demonstrate notability for actors/playwrights and none are in evidence here. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schwartz

non-notable actress, miserably fails the google test by getting only 62 hits when the search criterion was "Emily Schwartz" actress. I vote delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Casino

Non-notable corporation that does not appear to pass any notability guideline with a spammy writeup. Erechtheus 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new cow

Contested prod about a non-notable band. Would be speediable except for the discography section. MER-C 08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. LOL, I personally think this qualifies for WP:UA. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Community Codec Pack

This article is about a collection of codecs used by some people in the fansub community. There is, to my knowledge, no information published about it in reliable sources, so the entire article is original research; this is emphasized by the absence of citations or footnotes. The article is also fairly POV in places, with such claims as "According to the feedback received and general observation, it can be reasonably inferred that it is fulfilling its purpose. The affiliated groups receive less playback-related issues and the CCCP is capable of playing back most video media while installing and consuming only a minimal amount of resources" (again, unsourced).

Essentially, CCCP is just a collection of slightly modified, already extant software, so I don't really see any place else for it to be mentioned or for the article to be merged into. There is no real verifiable information to include anywhere else, except potentially that a collection of software named "CCCP" exists.

It seems apparent to me, especially from the lack of even a single edit to the Talk page, and the inclusion of notes about installing the software, that the article is basically being used as a guide to CCCP. Since Wikipedia is not a guide, and the article has no encyclopedic information, I propose that this article be deleted.

-- Slowking Man 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this doesn't appear to be very verifiable, or sufficiently notable - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CCCP is a very widely used codec pack. Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative were similar codec packs nominated for deletion and kept, as they are just as notable. AfD is not where you ask to get articles cleaned up: the CCCP is quite clearly notable, and just because the article contains unsourced POV doesn't mean it should be deleted. If there is unsourced information, delete it! Be bold! Don't delete an article to solve problem's with its content. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The article is most definitely not being used as a "guide for CCCP," as the CCCP has its own, drastically more detailed wiki with a hundred times more information. The article should simply be an overview of what the CCCP is, not a replacement for the CCCP wiki. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source that supports your assertion that "CCCP is a very widely used codec pack"? Also, the fact that a wiki exists for CCCP doesn't mean the article is not being used in the fashion of a guide. I agree that "[the] article should simply be an overview of what the CCCP is," but it seems to me it's not, in its current state. --Slowking Man 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, in many ways it is not. That does not mean it should be deleted though. The most important information that should be on the page is:
  1. What the codec pack supports.
  2. Why the codec pack exists. For example one could state (and use the project page itself as a source here) that the codec pack was created to standardize playback of video files, so that instead of having to deal with different playback setups on every computer, one could simply install this one pack and be sure it would work with all video designed to work under the pack. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free-Codecs and BetaNews, two of the unofficial distributors of the pack, have their combined number of downloads of the newest version exceeding 65,000. --Kamasutra 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In spite of its name it is not a "codec pack" but a playback solution used by numerous groups involved in movie encoding. It is the recommended playback solution by the Matroska team and by tens of release groups in the Anime community, and used by tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of users. As the current encoding and playback standard as well as being the standard playback solution for Matroska playback, it does deserve its place. The article documents a widespread standard playback solution. As such, deletion would be wrong wrong, and if anything needs to be done about the article it should be edited instead. Mikademus 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, can you provide reliable sources that support your assertions? --Slowking Man 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 10 second google news search got me this. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that it is the recommended playback solution of Matroska, the developers of the .MKV media container format, strike you as "significant" enough? Mikademus 07:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. I'm curious as to what constitutes a reliable source. It's rare for free software to be reviewed by "reliable" third parties because the purpose of such reviews is to help the consumer make an informed decision with their money. Numerous software articles on Wikipedia do not cite sources other than their homepage. If the homepage is not considered reliable then these other software articles should be deleted as well, or other sources should be found. (e.g. the integral component of CCCP, ffdshow). POV is not a legitimate reason to delete in my opinion, because it is something that can be fixed. The only reason I can see to delete this article is if the sources from which the article is composed are deemed unreliable, hence making it hopeless to reform. --Kamasutra 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite notable, recommend by many fansub groups and AnimeSuki. Doesn't appear to violate WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NOR. The only real problem I see is that it is base entirely on primary sources and needs secondary sources to balance it. It could also include information on its affects on the fansubbing community and what criticism it has received, if any. But those alone aren't enough to delete this article. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum One of the reasons I missed in the original rational is that the article is a manual or guide. But I don't see how this can be interpreted as such. The page doesn't give any instructions on how to download, install, configure, or use the software. What it does is introduce the subject, give a brief history, explain why it was created, and gives a list of features and what other components make up the pack. None of which constitutes a guide. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fairly notable codec pack. Maybe the article needs to be wikified more, but not deleted. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strikes me as notable. I don't even use it (or windows), but I'm aware of it and I see the justification for the claims that it's better than most other codec packs. I'm not the one to fix this article, but I strongly suspect it can be brought in compliance with WP:NPOV etc. My Alt Account 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nool

del a nonnotable Estonian drummer. Verifiability problem. The claimed discography nonverifiable; at least it hardly can be credited to him. Provided links give only cursory remarks. Estonian wikipedia does not know it. `'mikka (t) 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I commend Mikka on his restraint for not deleting this outright. I am a bit more rouge. Monograph by single purpose account, canonical spam, a festering sore on the face of the project. And those were its good points... Guy 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant spam  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punamust

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer School Wust

Looks like nothing more than a student exchange program. Delete exolon 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as lacking sufficient context. This does not seem to be connected to D20, or at least not in any proper sense. Guy 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D20 twilight

The article appears to be a list of roll-playing game rules. Wikipedia is not a rule book; not enough context to determine what the article is about; copyright notice at the bottom suggests the article is a copyvio; possible vanity; formerly prodded, but removed. Deli nk 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budge Hall

Non-notable college dorm. Vanity. Delete. Deli nk 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. Xoloz 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstonworth Rovers and Barnstonworth Rovers F.C.

Non-notable local amateur sports club. Possible vanity article. Deli nk 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Justin (R.J.) Sarna

unverified, unsourced bio; prod deleted w/o discussion, no sources added - CobaltBlueTony 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's worth noting that the citations to the Sun-Times claim page numbers of C5 and C10. The Sun-Times is a tabloid, and does not have separate lettered sections, so those are not even possible page numbers. Fan-1967 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard Richard Sarna's programme several times on both listening via the web during my frequent vacations to Italy, and as a patron of Roscoes I am very familiar with this talented and hilarious individual. It saddens me that somebody's jealousy of his talents would cause them to doubt his existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.105.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stupid hoax, nearly every assertion is impossible to verify. My Alt Account 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax: famed US comedy groups from the 21st century usually have some Google hits at least. Fram 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are we sure that this "Fan 1967" is a real person and not a rival of R.J. Sarna and his comedy act? I mean, does it seem logical that if they didn't have a vested interest in the personal demise of Mr. Sarna that they would care so much and go to such great lengths to discredit him?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.107.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Furthermore this Danny Litheborne is an individual who suffers from multiple personallity disorders and still watches Sailor Moon. He additionally believes in the existence of hte clearly fictitious sailor crystals, which were a concept in the CHILDREN'S "SAILOR MOON" FRANCHISE, and additionally claims to read spellbooks. I'm not sure if we want somebody who obviously suffers from such delusional fantasy to be contributing or even offering his opinions, clearly founded in lunacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.107.47 (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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Howe

non-notable, claim mostly by association with notable writers and one story published in Slate Crunch 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable Multimedia

probably OR, merge with multimedia if appreciate Yy-bo 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable multimedia encompasses not just software, but new processes and also applications. See Talk:Modifiable_Multimedia. Endless blue 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it an established concept? Otherwise it is WP:OR. Multimedia history does not belong to this article anyway. User:Yy-bo 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is an established concept, although not in name. The concept of modifiable multimedia is mentioned in various ways by practitioners, researchers, companies, etc. Following are a few links.

link company profile mentioning specialty of making multimedia "modifiable"

patent description related to object oriented software designed to make multimedia modifiable

Flash 8 documentation page discussing modifiable appearance of multimedia application navigation

modifiable behaviors in C++ that permit programming interface change capability

This concept is really well embedded in the interactive world, it just hasn't been articulated. I don't consider it to be original as a concept. The history discussion was meant to provide context. I was working on additional content such as example, and more specific methods to add to the article. Endless blue 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment: I just read the article and the discussion on political correctness and I'm not sure how the issues there relate here. I didn't read any comments about how well established that term was - most of the commentary revolved around the controversey of the article. Could you elaborate? I'm new to Wikipedia and sort of new to all this but trying to catch on quickly. Thanks! Endless blue 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do not directly relate here. They (various editors) were not accepting examples for political correctness. The requirement was: The term must have been established for years. It is a while ago. By the way see the talk page of Modifiable Multimedia; probably there is another article which alread covers the concept.
      • You say you are new. Good, welcome. Don't mind a deletion nomination being something absolute. It is always possible to argue. Have a look WP, Wikipedia:Village_pump if you have not already. Sorry if the article looks a bit WP:NOR original research to me. It is also possible to withdraw a deletion vote. However there are various attempts to create articles about obscure concepts. User:Yy-bo 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 

Text from the discussion on talk page

This page is describing a form of end-user innovated collaborative software that is neither unique to multimedia nor requires multiple forms of media. I don't see why it warrants a separate page. I suggest that anything unique on this subject is moved to the page where the broader technology or unique discipline is presented. Oicumayberight 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable multimedia is more than a form of software - it also describes a framework by which multimedia content can be structured so that its modifiable and thus more affordable. Part of this framework approach does involve the use of specific types of software, however, it doesn't have to only be collaborative software. In many cases, automated software processes will drive data to multimedia files (e.g., news title, stock tickers, weather, GIS locations) and cause updates without human intervention.

Modifiable multimedia also encompasses the use of different styles interface design, storyline planning, concept development, workflow and planning for copywriting than in traditional multimedia concepting and production. For example, a multimedia presentation that can be modified also requires that the authors plan navigation differently and identify cases where that navigation might also need to change based on content that is removed/inserted. Endless blue 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a different level of activity here, it probably falls under the category of Dynamic web content. If the article suggests that dynamic media content is used in much broader applications than online media, then it should be under the category of electronic media or dynamic data-driven media. In any case, unless the level of interactive is only possible with multiple forms of media, it shouldn't be considered part of a multimedia subject. The multimedia discipline is taking into consideration the skills and technologies of combining multiple forms of content, instead of the technology associated with the separate content forms. 75.80.181.224 05:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about your suggestions and I still think that there are important distinctions in modifiable multimedia that make it a poor fit into one of those categories. Modifiable multimedia does not have to be web content. It could be a multimedia presentation playing on a Plasma screen in a corporate office that changes over time, or it could be a a CD ROM with a multimedia (text, images, animations) interface whose data (images, text) can update via web services like SOAP. Electronic media on the other hand seems much broader and nebulous. It covers more than just multimedia, and the concept of modifiability is subsumed in it, however its important to note that while modifiable web pages that are not multimedia have been possible since the advent of the web, modifiable multimedia interfaces are truly a new thing made possible with continuing advanceds in Flash, Java, etc. I would also suggest we consolidate discussion in the article deletion thread: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Modifiable_Multimedia. Endless blue 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Since Merge

I understand that what is called modifiable multimedia describes a level of interactivity unavailable in previous years. There is always going to be emerging technologies that have big impacts on electronic media, static media, and the media ecology. However, it's not that often that technology changes enough to warrant a new term. Technological buzzwords are short lived as technology is constantly developing. Unless there is new hardware (like the router), new formats (like digital), revolutionary concepts (like DOS, OOP, GUI), or revolutionary languages (like Java), there usually isn't enough change in technology to justify a new term. Excessive variations of terms and excessive definitions of terms for existing technology only makes it hard to grasp the broader more important breakthroughs. The risk is that these buzzwords catch on before there meaning is fully understood. This only contributes to the vagueness. The lack of consensus surrounding the full meaning of a term can lead to a lack of collaboration in utilizing the technology the term is describing.

I did a google search on "modifiable multimedia". The full term that came up was "User-modifiable Multimedia Applications". My suggestion is to find the best application of what is called modifiable multimedia and add the relevant information to the pages where that application is being discussed. There is already a page on User innovation. If it's not user innovation that's important, then it must be either user-personalized or data-driven that makes it important. If it's not the end user who is modifying the content, it's nothing special because most online content is modifiable to some degree. Oicumayberight 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is still an important distinction though that wasn't covered by your quick search. Modifiable multimedia can be "user modifiable", or it can be modifiable by third parties or administrators (e.g., teachers who want to reuse a multimedia template where they can upload assessment materials, videos, etc. and create multimedia lessons tailored for specific classes or even topics). What you're describing is related more to context driven changes in multimedia - e.g., allowing a user to select his/her favorite music track while browsing a site. That is different that administrator-modifiable-multimedia. Both forms of modifiability are subsumed under "modifiable multimedia". I want to stress again that the main reason this concept is significant is that it makes multimedia interactions more affordable to deploy, thus opening up new possibilities in education, marketing, e-commerce, customer service, and so forth. What you say taht "most online content is modifiable", it should be pointed out again that multimedia does not need to be online and furthermore, multimedia is more difficult to update and make data-driven than text or alphanumeric content like an HTML file. Really this concept covers all of the articles (and more) that you list above. Endless blue 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emphasize again that user innovation is a higher level of interactivity, which seems to be the significance of modifiable-multimedia. Even if the page remains and is linked to all relative pages, user innovation and interactivity will be researched before a term such as modifiable-multimedia by those most interested. A google search shows 74,600 hits on the phrase "user innovation" in quotation marks compared to 92 hits under "modifiable multimedia". Rather than use a vague term to promote such an important concept, it's better to use more popular terms to support the concept if it's that important. The best way to do this is link the concepts as with the most popular terms to each other. This is why I suggest you put them on the pages to which they are relevant. Noticed when you added the term to the Multimedia page, I replaced it with user-innovation, the more popular term for the enhanced level of interactivity you described. Like wise, you could add multimedia to the user innovation page and explain how multimedia can be user innovated (modifiable) on that page. You could even create a new page and call it user innovated multimedia that would probably be received better. It's comparing the words "modifiable" with "user innovated" that makes me uneasy about the term. Modifiable is so broad, it could dilute the importance of user innovation in this concept. You may even get more hits on the Polar Design web page with the term user innovation in the subtext. ;) Oicumayberight 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: To sumnarize the arguments so far: (1) this is original research, or (2) the matererial would best be presented by being written into other articles, such as User innovation and others articles, the refutation being that (1) it's not original research and (2) the material is better presented in this article. The raw "vote" total to this point is 3-1 in favor of Delete. Herostratus 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Mall (Brownsville, Texas)

This article should be deleted based on the fact it is non notable in itself the mall is not unique from the innumerable other malls in the United States, Texas or the world. Furthermore it is already included in the Brownsville, Texas article which in my opinion would make a merge a moot subject. James E. Zavaleta T C E 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. While tempted to relist this due to lack of consensus, looking at the history, I can see that this article was written almost entirely by an employee (or other person with a conflict of interest) of GFI Solutions, so I am applying my admin's discretion with deleting this article. I have no problems with having this article rewritten by a neutral party as long as the content conforms with Neutral point of view policy. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFI Solutions

Here we go again. Reads like an advert. Created by GFIsolutions (talk · contribs) and all subsequent edits being by an anon who also linked to the list of ERP vendors, from which web links and redlinks are routinely removed. 564 googles of which 137 unique, private company, no turnover, no evidence of impact, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Canonical spam, in other words. Guy 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new user to Wikipedia, I agree that I may have gotten a little overenthusiastic. I would very much like, if possible, to create an article that answers Wikipedia requirements. I will definetely review the links created, and have remove the one you mentionned. However, I do note in the regulations thata company which has been written about in the press is eligible. We have had a number of articles published in the media, including the Gazette, Les affaires, Plant Enginnering, Gestion Logistique, Le Devoir. Admittedly these articles are all Canadian-based, but they are widely read on a local basis. These articles are referenced on our website. We are also a subsidiary of GFI Informatique, which is a public company. I am not sure of the regulations for this situation. Tanja Gehring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TGehring (talk • contribs)
    • TGehring does make a valid point. I do not personally know if these newspapers are popular in Canada, because if they are, then it meets one criterion of WP:CORP. --Nishkid64 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newspapers re-hashing a company's press releases ("we have had a number of articles published") does not count. What counts is journalists writing articles of their own about the company. If you can cite any articles of the latter kind, please do so. Uncle G 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here is a more complete list of articles. Some are in French, given our geography. They are all

independent writings, and widely read in Quebec. In answer to your last question, GFI has not been covered in book or consumer organizations.

cATCHING THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE/ Desjardins hires outside help for smart card transition, from IT BUSINESS CANADA/ La carte magnétique désuète dès 2008, from LES AFFAIRES/GFI Solutions commandite des gazelles, from DIRECTION INFORMATIQUE Signed: TGehring

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I have added links to the articles within the external links section.Signed: TGehring
  • Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that the only substantive edits to this article are by a throwaway account with the company's name and the by company's "Data Provider"? Guy 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete: per user:Mackan: promotion vehicle; abuse of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nowadays

That's what it's supposed to do, yes. But when the actual homepage of the new Numa Numa brags on it's press page that Wikipedia articles have been written on new Numa Numa and the entry on this band, it becomes obvious that some people try and use Wikipedia as means of promoting their products. Mackan 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosado

Vanity article, advertising and full of corporate speak. Prod was removed (incidentally on the 5th day of the prod) Wildthing61476 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Miyadai

Unsourced, no claim to notability. Prod was disputed. Septentrionalis 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It may be a "new article", but it's not a new user, and the old user was blocked for a time, for, among other things, creating articles on mathematicians while inserting references to their importance in mathematical articles, where that importance was unverified (to User:Yy-bo)
  2. The creator was previously banned from the ja wiki and blocked for a period of time here; if it's his article there, it won't be there for long. (to User:ColourBurst).
I doubt that it is the same user. The ja article has been around since 2004, and has seen a lot of different editors. Neier 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted after blanking by author. Punkmorten 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill In The Blankie

Advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Massacre on Queens Boulevard

Non-notable wrestling event, several other ECW events that were similar to this were deleted for the same reason. TJ Spyke 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daywing

Unpublished character, no appearances, probable fan creation CovenantD 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin & Company

non-notability, SDC 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zak

Delete. As I said when I prod-ded it: Notability of this subject is in question. Google search for "Michael Zak" brings up about 15 relevant mentions in the first 50 results. Author of article has also been inserting somewhat inflammatory remarks about politics and the Civil War into other articles. Regardless, I can't see how this subject meets the guidelines of WP:BIO. ... discospinster talk 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near-visible EMR

Page is about a small frequency range of electromagnetic radiation. The information is already covered by several articles on the subject, and this article does little to assert the importance of this particlar distinction.

Hmm the content of this article could have been included into other articles. However, it is exclusively based on the science/astrophysics definition, not addressing the effects or usage of a certain wavelength range. Using the other articles as link target is just not really suitable for some technical articles. The reader already knows the operate using light. But does not want to browse the long EMR explanation. I have tried to address some experts on the subject. User:Yy-bo 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can pipelink to the appropriate section in Electromagnetic spectrum (once written). There is no need for a reader to have to browse through the whole article. Alternatively, if you are only refering to NIR then you could pipelink to the appropriate section in infrared. A better use of your time, I think, would be to improve on these article rather than creating a spinoff. David D. (Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a1. NawlinWiki 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small breasts pornography

Empty article with no revision history Orayzio 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Nu

Another user prodded this, and made a link to the non-existent AfD page. Leaving a note on their user page so they can comment on why they want this to be deleted. --Nishkid64 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance!

  • Reason for Deletion: This page unfortunately appears to meet the Wikipedia standard of an "attack page" on Alpha Phi Alpha. The creator, NinjaNubian (also known as Mykungfu and Bobbydoop), created the page after being temporarily blocked several times under several IPs from editing and reverting on Alpha Phi Alpha. The page on its face is an attack against Alpha Phi Alpha, using as its basis mostly unreliable sourcing [43][44][45]. WikiPedia defines defines an "attack page" as:
  1. Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.

The meat of this article choses to attack as follows, with what appears to be a sharply non-neutral POV:

First black fraternity

Sigma pi phi founded in 1904 makes the true claim of being the oldest black surviving fraternity [46]. There have been claims Alpha Phi Alpha is the first inter-collegiate black fraternity [47] though this has been in dispute. This claim is argued by the fact that it was founded in December of 1906 [48]. Three years after the founding of Alpha Kappa Nu. [49] This lost historical fact and controversy continues on to till this day. [50] Many websites will unwittingly refer to their organization as being the first inter-collegiate black fraternity. Sigma Pi Phi is the oldest documented surviving black fraternity. Proven by research that has not been disputed, Alpha Kappa Nu is the first black fraternity as well as the first black inter-collegiate fraternity shown by research.


205.188.116.68 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing an attack page template on this page, but I will refrain from blanking or editing it because I do not wish to enter a nonsensical revert and edit war with its author. Please advise, and no, I am not a sockpuppet. Robotam 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • No you haven't. This piece now argues a logical fallacy, that his POV both is and is not in dispute, that it has and has not been disputed, that it is fact/true and controversy. And it is still a hatchet job on another entry and organization (Alpha Phi Alpha), that the author created because he was asked by various admin to stop editing and reverting the article on Alpha Phi Alpha to his POV. Robotam 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotam

Robotam along with other users is engaged in a request for comment against the creater of the article. As documented below at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian.

No administrators have asked for individuals to stop editing on THIS article. Robotam is a sockpuppet account. Everything here is documented with references. Mykungfu 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

evidence

http://groups.msn.com/NPHCArchivePhotoSociety/yourwebpage2.msnw

this article details some of the controversy that still exists

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053

http://www.usca.edu/nununupes/history.htm

www.stp.uh.edu/vol69/138/news/news3.html

Mykungfu 15:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


coordinated attack

robotam

Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu


he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history

Again my friend, sorry, no. Robotam 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)19:17, posted by robotam[reply]

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

The result was Delete Unmaintainable listcruft that could easily have been speedied as CSD A1/A3. Xoloz 16:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal porn actress

Not a neccessary page to have on wikipedia. Dave 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can media files be sourced for verifiability?--Onitsuh 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved into lists of pornographic actors where auto erotic list can be found--Onitsuh 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:while i agree that it's not necessary, i would point out that there are hundreds of lists that are not necessary here so that is probably not a good reason for deletion. Mapetite526 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be verified, as many of the wikipedia articles on pornographic actresses state that the actresses are known for anal scenes and there are award categories for anal scenes at adult film emmys AVN's? I think, or whatever they are called. It should be moved inside the list of pornographic actors List of porn stars list--Onitsuh 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a separate article listing a different niche within the pornography industry is valid. Wikipedia.com browsers may want access to specific actresses who have, I assume, solely performed anal sex in their career. All a matter of convenience, for them that is. Hellwing 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend consulting with the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars on this AfD discussion. As far as I can tell, this article is not intended to be a list of porn actresses who limited their activity on film/video exclusively to anal sex, but to any porn actresses who ever performed anal sex on film/video. If so, it would probably be a long and not particularly useful list, because I don't believe such activity is rare among contemporary porn actresses. --75.0.159.208 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Many modern porn actresses have made their mark in the industry through their skills in anal sex. I doubt any lasting porn actor has performed only one single classifiable pornographic act, however there are many actresses who are known primarily for anal acts.--Onitsuh 07:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. --Gray Porpoise 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"amie rodgers"

Contested PROD. Delete as failing WP:V; no WP:RS indicating this person meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Jurassic Park

No assertion of notability for this rpg community/forum. — AKADriver ☎ 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIP (band)

Non-notable musical group. I previously speedy-deleted it, but its creator, Fibonacci, protested, so I am posting it here for additional opinions. —tregoweth (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep schools. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagan Elemantary School

non notable elementary school. All relivent info is already in the article it should be merged into. This AFD should also apply to Nassau Elemantary School American Patriot 1776 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that public high schools are notable, but an elementary school? American Patriot 1776 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Public money creates public institutions, and therefore they are notable in those areas. On the other hand, my recent nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is private, unaccredited status without any notablity. However, I will change my vote to weak keep. But sources will be needed to keep the article. Arbusto 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Fernandes

I put the notability tag on this, and someone pulled it off. This is a person with an unaccredited doctorate (it is called a diploma mill by some) who is a teacher at Shepherds Bible College (an unaccredited place without a wikipedia article and also referred to as a degree mill).

Subject fails WP:BIO, and article asserts no notability. Arbusto 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mule Deer

This entry fails WP:BIO. There is no biographical information beyond a list of shows that he has appeared in. Prod removed by creator and speedy failed as the television appearances were deemed as an assertion of notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gay Cdn (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Showerman

Fails to meet minimum criteria for inclusion for actors according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) Trnj2000 22:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Latham

Fails WP:BIO. Article asserts no notability, I get less than 2,000 google hits, which includes this article as hit #4 and Lance's unrelated to this one.[51] Arbusto 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Witch Alone

Does this book blurb need its own article? The author has her own page where her books are all listed, but only this book has its own page. The summary seems very much a blurb for the book. If there is something notable about the author's beliefs/practices, it seems to me it'd be better on the author's page. Eileen R 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_13&oldid=76487697"