Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.171.78.155 (talk) at 22:23, 11 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 10 July 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete, unverifiable.  RasputinAXP  c 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan (mythology)

Evan lacks historical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glengordon01 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-11 22:37:08

  • Keep and cleanup It is notable, but it needs a lot more information Well, it's obviously going to be deleted so never mind --Mason 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further explain, what I see is a link to the Lares who are Roman deities, not Etruscan. The confusion between Roman and Etruscan cultures has to stop. It's patently inane to think they are interchangeable cultures in this day and age. Their differences were explained by classical Roman and Greek authors, albeit with potential bias, but nonetheless Etruscan society, mythology, culture, language, etc is fairly distinct from Roman culture for a few early authors to have mentioned differences in the first place! What I'm concerned about is that "Evan" is in fact not based on anything real, but simply taken from some crackpot Wiccan website, of which there are many. On these sites, so many of the deities are fictitious constructs meant to fill in gaps in historical knowledge via fertile imagination rather than honest academic research. --Glengordon01 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, sorry to beat up on you good Wiccans out there but Etruscan history and Wiccanism is a bad mix ;) --Glengordon01 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsourced article, fails WP:V. And, being "_one of the_ Lares" is almost non-notable by definition, if my knowledge of Classical mythology is anything to go by. Tevildo 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, unless references are added. I certainly cannot find any... /wangi 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I didn't look hard enough to actually find a legitamate source, but at 19000 hits for evan etruscan, and pages on the first page talking about how Evan is an Etruscan god/goddess, it's a keeper. Needs expanding/citation, not deletion. --PresN 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - On second thought, based on the other comments here, it can't be expanded, as it's total crap. Thanks to whoever did the U of Chicago source down there. --PresN 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You can't just say "It's a popular myth therefore it's a keeper". That's braindead. A lie is a lie. Ask an Etruscanologist what Evan is and (s)he'll think you're a total newbie twat. --Glengordon01 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have researched and expanded the article; this is a legitimate and notable article, although it is a stub. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MISTRANSLATIONS AND HEARSAY: As of Jul.12.2006, the article displays complete ignorance of the actual Etruscan language. Yet again, it's confused with Roman culture and the Latin language. There is absolutely no word evi in Etruscan, only avil which means "year". Total idiocy masquerading as fact. --Glengordon01 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V so far as I can tell. Unable to find any reliable sources online for this, including those cited (they offer no references or other reason to believe that fact checking was done) when I started researching an hour ago. Reliable sources in the first 100 unique hits of this google search only used "Evan" as part of a name for a modern person. (The companion search with "evi" specifically required only used "evi-" in a hyphenated form of "evidence" or "evidant" and equivalent irrelevant uses.) No relevant hits on Google Scholar. No reason to keep from Google Book, as the only viewable relevant page says that Evan is an unexplained name for one of the Lasas. If anyone wants to do library research I can recommend looking for the following which might be hits but isn't viewable online: The Etruscan Language: An Introduction, Revised Editon by Giuliano Bonfante, Larissa Bonfante, page 188 - the google book search gives enough contect to establish that "Evan" is a name for a Lasa, but no more. GRBerry 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found something else on Google Book Search:
In several cases, proper names accompany these figures [of young female daemons], typically Etruscan names about which nothing else is known, such as Alpan, Evan, Zipna [...] — 'Etruscan Daemonology', in Bonnefoy, Yves (1992), Roman and European Mythologies, University of Chicago Press, p. 41.
Hmmm, doesn't sound like this article is very verifiable... — Haeleth Talk 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy close per WP:SK - not an article, already opened on cfd MartinRe 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French liberal parties

redundant and slippery category. What does "liberalism" means in a French context? This is very slippery category, because "liberalism" hasn't got the same sense in the US and in France. In France, "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism, and is associated with right-wing parties, while in the States it is opposed to "conservative". But a party such as the Sarkozy's UMP could be alternatively qualified as "conservative" and "liberal", and includes people from both tendencies!!! This is understandable enough, if one gets that this means that one may be conservative in the social sense and liberal in economics policies. Furthermore, "liberalism", in this French context, is opposed to gaullism, which Jacques Chirac claims to be the heir, a claim laughed out by all political commentators! User:Intangible who created this category has asked for deletion of Category:Far right political parties in France and attempts to substitute the current classification with US criterias, which is a form of ethnocentrism and lack of understanding of the French context, where left/right criterias are used since the French Revolution. Tazmaniacs 12:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Korean cuisine  RasputinAXP  c 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean snacks

This page as is currently written violates WP:NPOV, and is not written in an encyclopedic tone. But then even if you correct those problems, you are mostly left with just a list of 4 Korean snack foods with a brief description of each. Of the 4 foods listed, 3 already have their own articles or stubs (Gimbap, Kimchi Jeon and Bungeoppang).

It therefore makes more sense to delete this page and instead create the category "Korean snacks", unless this article can be extended into something beyond a list of foods. 24.19.184.243 10:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

upon review of article and comments I believe merge is probably the best way to go. 24.19.184.243 10:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was DELETE. nn-author Madchester 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Louise Lee

See Google matches[1] - 28. Two books on Amazon do not automatically make a notable author. Majority of info in this article can not be verified in any other source except for the author's own "MySpace". Mad Jack 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was DELETE. unverifiable filmMadchester 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Raven: The Movie

Fancruft/speculation. Only source cited says the info comes from a book on Amazon that lists a publishing date of February 1, 2007! Yeah, right. Google doesn't help me.[2] None of the film sites list this as being in any stage of production. Mad Jack 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Too!

Smells like fancruft/speculation to me. Source cited is not a reliable source. Mad Jack 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Wrestling

Promotion is too small to be of notice, and page is abandoned. Kyle Burris 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's no such thing as a merge and delete, and the crash of the plane is not notable in any way, shape or form, despite it being owned by Pat Robertson. Had he been on board, sure. Otherwise, no dice.  RasputinAXP  c 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash

Non-notable plane crash that only killed two pilots and injured 3, only has an article because the plane was owned by Pat Robertson, minor plane crashes happen every day Merge any relevant content to Robertson and Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Pat Robertson famous? I've never heard of him and he wasn't even on the plane. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is not that Pat Robertson isn't famous, but that the crash doesn't involve Pat Robertson. Roughly speaking, this article has no more encyclopaedic value than A tree Jon Stewart once saw. A otherwise non-notable event that involves a famous person in an extremely peripheral way is not encyclopaedic. WilyD 21:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but it's not really that notable. If it's any consolation, it's good formatting and well done, but there's little point to it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WilyD (and a note). I saw this article because I keep an eye on Storms contribs and almost AFD'd it myself. I saw this AFD because Storm05 is canvassing for keep votes (marking all his talk page vote requests as minor edits), which is pretty immature (and appears to be backfiring). TimL 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- by the way someone had listed another notalbe low or no death plane article for deletion if you guys are interested.
  • Weak keep. The incident generated enough information to allow an interesting article to be written. It has been said that we should consider not just whether an article would be expected to be included in a general encyclopedia, but whether it would be expected to be included in a specialist encyclopedia related to the topic. In other words, if there was an encyclopedia of aircraft crashes, would this be in it? I think it probably would be. Johntex\talk 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a decent sized article with good info and sources to back up all points has been created. This shows it attracted a lot of media and did not go unnoticed on the whole. - Erebus555 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't see anything particularly notable about this. If the article is kept, it should certainly be renamed. Something like Crash of Lear N182K would be a much better name. I've already gone ahead and deleted some erroneous cats -- a lear is not an airliner. As a side comment, the author of the article appears to be campainging for support on people's user pages, which is always a turn-off. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very minor incident. Mention some appropriate details in the Robertson article. Oh, and I only saw this when I checked to see what was going on at the JetBlue page and saw the apparently emphatic contributor's note linking to this AfD from that one. I guess that's not all that notable since I see above that this one links back too JetBlue. GassyGuy 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is now deletepedia, apparently. User:Raccoon Fox Talk 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. You're comment adds nothing to the discussion. TimL 02:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius "Cory" Matthews (Ben Savage)

This is already well treated at Boy Meets World. Graham 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoryuken (band)

Yet another MySpace band. I doubt they're notable, but a Google search would understandably tell little, since Shoryuken is also a popular fighting game move as well as a Street Fighter website. Danny Lilithborne 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Barger

Tagged for cleanup since December 2005, this blogger article shows telltale signs of vanity, and only manages 802 Google hits whereas most other American bloggers on the low end of the spectrum pull in at least 10,000. As usual, if you feel that I've made a horrible mistake in this nomination, please say so here or drop me a note on my talk page. RFerreira 00:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 articles. PESA is currently redirected to its disamb. Mailer Diablo 15:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PESA

Blatant spam and advertising in failure of WP:WEB. Author removed prod tag from both articles. Please note that the name of the author is a large scale retailer on eBay (Adam Hersch auctions). Alphachimp talk 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Fails WP:WEB - even if there are multiple non-trivial published works about the site "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section" . A list of publications without references to the articles does not satisfy that requirement (and is ugly and pointless). Yomangani 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Although PESA was only formed three years ago it has quickly become a nationally recoginzed organization. PESA has been mentioned in many major national publications[11] and is highly regarded by my many established financial institutions[12] throughout the world. PESA has held numerous high-profile charity campaigns to raise tens of thousands of dollars. Even world reknown authors such as Marsha Collier and Circuit City are members of PESA. You can easily Google PESA and see over 727,000 results. I just added a list of publications PESA is mentioned in.Adamhersh 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)AdamHersh[reply]
    • Comment Sorry for asking again but what are the major national publications and the many financial institutions that provide such importance to PESA? You give two links: one is a google search and is hardly proof of anything. "pesa" is a four letter word and there is a good chance that you get a lot of hits for any four letter word on Google. For instance, "pese ebay" will give you 412 000 Ghits [13], "pase ebay" gets you 329 000 [14], "pena ebay" gives you 1 600 000 [15]. So please provide links to very specific examples of wide media recognition of PESA. You might find that difficult given that a google search for "Professional eBay Sellers Alliance" turns up 129 unique Ghits [16]. Now you might argue about your second link but given the lack of context (what's this conference? How where the companies chosen?) that still is pretty weak. Since the start of the debate you have reworked the references a bit, by including for instance at the top of the list a NYTimes article. Aaaah, I thought, at last a decent reference. But the article only mentions PESA in passing... Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it needs to be evaluated as an organization, not as a web site. eBay is huge, and it is notoriously vicious toward its sellers - I think an organization of its top sellers is notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox: The WebManga

Free web hosts, don't you just love them? Geocities, Freewebs, XOOM? Reminds you of the late nineties doesn't it, when everything seemed to be on them. The hosting companies are entirely notable, but what about a website hosted on these free hosts? Today, I bring you a list of entirely non notable webcomics, join me as we trek through this banality. This nomination is for the bravenet hosted website, found here. Just looking at the website and you know its not good, apart from the free host they use, they've also got a webcounter on there (the late nineties theme continues). I am the 1627th visitor, having been around for over a year, this is not notable. Sure, the counter may have rolled over the 9,999,999 mark, but when various searches with different strings on Google fail to bring up anything over 10 links[17][18], I doubt it. Also note that the author of this article is the webcomic author, User:Kayzeecomics, thanks for taking an interest in Wikipedia, but it's not a web directory, nor is it a place to tout your own wares. - Hahnchen 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kit and Kay Boodle

Here's another free host webcomic, unlike the above nomination, you may not have heard of the host, Comic Genesis. Just think of it as a Geocities of the webcomic world. This furry webcomic (probably not safe for work) can be seen here. As Alexa is down right now, I can't tell you whether it features on the Alexa report for comic genesis. But you can still take a look at the Google links and see if you find any decent external critical comment or reviews of this work. Because the search for "kit n kay boodle", although bringing up 150 Google links, you'll see that many of these results do not have anything to do with the comic, instead something to with kit cars, like the results on this page. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was d3l3t3. Mailer Diablo 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Combat Stupid

This freehost comic can be found on Smack Jeeves, here (you have to click the OK button to download a virus to enter). On a sidenote, Smack Jeeves claims to host thousands of websites, yet only returns an Alexa rank of around 100,000. Is it even notable? That's for another time, but this Halo: Combat Evolved fan fiction webcomic definitely isn't. Begun in March 2006 and already on "hiatus" (author has given up), this is not a notable website. At all. - Hahnchen 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser's Plan B

The trifecta of free webcomics hosting is complete, we've had Keenspace, Smack Jeeves and now Drunk Duck. You can see this super mario fan fiction webcomic here. From previous drunkduck nominations, I can tell you that the webcomics host Drunk duck pulls in Alexa figures of around 100,000 (Alexa is currently down). A look at Google shows less than 20 links for the search term "Bowser's Plan B". This is not notable in any way, just like many of the webcomics which seem to be endlessly multiplying on Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Fails WP:WEB --Madchester 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Comic

Why is it that Category:Webcomics is larger than Category:Blogs or Category:Erotica websites? Is it because blogs and porn site are totally unrepresented on Wikipedia? That webcomics form a larger part of the Internet than porn sites or blogs? Or that webcomics are inherently more notable than other websites? Or maybe that webcomics are utterly overrepresented here on Wikipedia? I think its a bit of the first and more of the last. One of the possible reasons can be seen at the webcomic, here. In the news post you can see that the author is flattered that someone has put together a Wikipedia page for his "little comic" and calling Wikipedia a "noble effort to amass information on just about every webcomic out there". This is not what Wikipedia is, yet many webcomic fans seem to think otherwise. This "little webcomic" belongs on comixpedia, which is an effort to amass webcomic information, and the only way we're going to change that community's perception of Wikipedia is to get these non-notable websites deleted. I think that this little comic isn't notable, nor does its author, a Google search doesn't bring back much relevence to this comic at all. I checked this on Alexa when it was still up, I can't remember the exact figure, but the rank was in the hundreds of thousands, it definitely wasn't good enough to not get blacklisted on my watchlist. - Hahnchen 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONGLY KEEP!!!! I don't see why this should not be kept. There already are Wikipedia pages about other sprite comics such as the Neglected Mario Characters and I don't see anyone deleting that. This one is just as good,is about Nintendo other big franchise, and is a hell lot more updated as well. Anyways doing so shows nothing but ignorance. Yami Sasha 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I always say, any site that cites their Wikipedia page on their front page fails WP:WEB. Oh yeah, per nom.~ Alphachimp talk 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB--Nick Y. 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nick Y AdamBiswanger1 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally Fails WP:WEB Aeon 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete I almost feel bad for this guy. Almost. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A little melodramatic, don't you think? The reason why the webcomic category is so large is because we've actually got most of them tagged, but not sorted. I'd be surprised if one blog in ten on Wikipedia has been wikified at all, let alone categorized. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB Michael 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use to populate the Delete category. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suppose I ought to correct the original poster's comment: On my website, I said that Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics was striving to amass information on webcomics, not Wikipedia as a whole. I'll cast my vote to keep the article on the merits of it being notable to me and other people that enjoy it, regardless of Alexa ratings. I'd also like to add that notability is hardly an objective basis for article deletion. And what's wrong with a topic being obscure? Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not paper. -- Mario Panighetti 21:05, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Comment, interestingly, last time you checked Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a soapbox or a vehicle for fancruft or a vehicle for advertising. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I didn't realize I was advertising via Wikipedia. If anything, I was advertising FOR Wikipedia from my page. Not a great deal of traffic comes through my site, I grant you, but I fail to see how I was using Wikipedia to advertise my site, since I didn't make the entry in question. -- Mario Panighetti
  • Comment, I apologize for cluttering this page up with cumbersome arguments against deletion. My vote's been cast, so I'll leave it at that, though it does seem that it's an argument I'm not going to win. Let the gears of the machine turn ever onward and ever forward. -- Mario Panighetti
    • Comment. Except...WP:AFD is not a vote, it is a means of establishing consensus among editors for reasons leading to deletion. Alphachimp talk 11:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I absolutely knew you were advertising FOR Wikipedia when you made that news post on your front page. That's cool. But Wikipedia isn't a place to catalogue every webcomic, and the wikiproject isn't either. The wikiproject is a good place to sort out all webcomic stuff out, like categorisation, rating articles and wikifying them. It also creates new articles, but it doesn't cover every webcomic out there, nor should it. Just as we don't cover every blog, forum, deviantart profile or porn site. - Hahnchen 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, Once again Hahnchen fails to read properly. First of all, on the comic's home page, mario states that it is the goal of WikiProject Webcomics ([19]), NOT Wikipedia as a whole, to gather information on webcomics. Therefore mario is not at all promoting Wikipedia as an encyclopedia on Webcomics as Hahnchen so ignorantly states. I have a final question to add to the opening series of questions: "Or perhaps there is nothing wrong with webcomics, but I, Hahnchen, am just a biased asshole who hates things that bring people happiness?" 100% of all webcomic authors and fans agree: my added question is, in fact, the correct choice. (See Hahnchen, you're not the only one who can make up statistics.) But go ahead. Delete it anyway since it give you a chubby. Zelda Comic and all the other webcomics whose articles you've so ignorantly deleted are better than this bullshit encyclopedia. Mjc0961 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I congratulate you for putting together a comment without resorting to your favourite pastime on vandalising my user page with your favourite phallus pictures, although you have yet again inserted a phallic reference into your comment. Is that a theme with you? I pull statistics out of my ass all the time, it just happens that when I do it, they're correct and can be easily verified. It's just a gift that I have. Yours however, are wrong. The Wikiproject's aim is not to cover every single webcomic on earth, being that some like DSSB are totally obscure, lack any kind of redeeming quality, and add nothing to the encyclopedia's value. Zelda Comic's a bit better than that, but still, compared with the billions of websites out there, it's not notable. - Hahnchen 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - Hahnchen 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see why it should be deleted. Deleted because of not being notable? I think that some people have different views. How many people are on the internet? Enough to make a deletion poll obsolete. ~w00ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.7.197 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Sorry you disagree with our deletion policy, w00ty, but it's quite fair. Perhaps if you were a member, you would understand it better. This article is non-notable and fails WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can understand where Hanchen is coming from, that you shouldn't catalogue every obscure sprite comic on the internet, however I personally feel that Zelda Comic has reached a level of popularity which warrants its own article, as when it was still on the Buzzcomix list, it would very rarely leave the top 20s, showing that it was and still is quite popular. ~— Preceding unsigned comment added by NightLord (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and Alexa rank of 868,565. —Caesura(t) 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let me state right off that I am a fan of Zelda Comic. That out of the way, let me also state that I understand most of the comments about deletion. Sure, Zelda Comic is not particularly notable to people outside of its fanbase. Most of the arguments based on notability make sense, although Hanchen is a moron who doesn't read all the way through before commenting on something. One argument does not make sense to me, though, so could someone explain it to me? How in the nine hells does Mario linking to his wiki page on the front page of HIS website automatically fail him on WP:WEB? If I made an article on something that could be perfect in all aspects about some website I own, then I went and linked to the wiki article on MY WEBSITE, would that automatically disqualify the article? It makes no sense to me. 207.62.176.150 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Methinks Alphachimp was making a little joke when he said that linking to Wikipedia is a disqualifier for inclusion on Wikipedia. (The basis of the joke is that in general, sites that are important enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia generally do not get excited when a Wikipedia article on them appears. Amazon.com, for example, does not have a notice on its front page saying, "Look, everyone! There's a Wikipedia article about us!") The real reason the site fails WP:WEB is that it has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", it has not "won a well known and independent award", and its content is not "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". —Caesura(t) 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Zelda comic is a very good comic and I put it right up there with far side. To delete this wikipedia page for reasons as pathetic as these is absurd. Even though they include true facts I don't beleive these are important enough to delete it for.--Jeremy Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.220.240 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as per nom, not to mention subsequent meatpuppetfest. --MCB 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PresN 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and obvious meatpuppetry due to the link on the webcomic's main page and subsequent fans wanting to keep the article from being deleted. Ryulong 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to quote: "So much for that whole Wikipedia idea. Apparently Zelda Comic isn't notable enough for them (On the comic's home page, this is a link to this very AfD discussion, and I have done the same to it here). Maybe it's just me, but it sure is odd using a criteria as subjective as "notability" for an encyclopedia. Doesn't the sheer size of the Internet and the number of users on it at any given moment mean that a reasonable amount of people will find anything notable (and for that matter, non-notable)? That link gives you the option to argue for the article's being kept, but I'm not going to push any of you to do so. It seems an awful lot like they've already made the decision anyway. Sigh." Ryulong 21:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The counterpoint to that frontpage comment is that the sheer size and mass of the internet make it impossible to catalog all information -- a common misconception is that Wikipedia indiscriminately collects information, and we don't. It's not that I hate you guys or anything, I'm sure you enjoy yourselves and I wish you nothing but the best. I only ask that you understand that we're literally flooded with hundreds or thousands of new articles every day, and if something even looks remotely like "This is a band my friends and I started," we're going to take a closer look. Have a glance at the criteria of WP:WEB, if you will. Notability can be subjective, but it's an important concept; factual accuracy alone doesn't guarantee inclusion. Hope that helps a bit. Regards, Luna Santin 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment We all understand that factual accuracy doesn't guarantee inclusion, and that Wikipedia isn't a blog for everyone to post about their little bands or whatnot on, Luna Santin. We're just plain sick of Hahnchen's bullshit where he acts like mario (or whatever author) wrote the article to promote his site and to promote Wikipedia as an index of all things webcomic. Then he always brings up Alexa and uses it to make it sound like only two or three people read the webcomic in question. You should not have admins on here insulting people like that for no reason whatsoever. What you have said above would be perfectly fine, but here comes this biased prick who has to come out and try to make every webcomic author out to be some jackass abusing Wikipedia when most of the time the author of the comic the article is about didn't even write the damn article in the first place! That's why it gets linked on their sites: they are excited to see that one of their fans took time out of their personal lives to write an article about their webcomic. And that's why you don't see Amazon.com putting "Look, everyone! There's a Wikipedia article about us!" -- because they don't care if there's a Wikipedia article about them. They're after money, and having a happy customer write an article about them doesn't interest them at all. In closing, it's nice to see someone explain why articles like this don't meet the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines without resorting to insulting the author of the webcomic. But as long as you have these assholes like Hahnchen here doing that, you're going to have pissed off fans like us coming here to stick up for the comics and authors in question. Mjc0961 12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I didn't act like Mario had written the article to promote his comic. I absolutely knew that he wrote the news post because he was he flattered that someone else thought his comic worthy of inclusion. My comment is on the feeling in the webcomic community that Wikipedia is used as a catalogue of all webcomics. If you had read my nomination, with eyes, you would have realised this. But instead you popped on your "Hahnchen is out to get us" hat and started talking about erections. - Hahnchen 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not meet our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 04:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–I just have a simple question... why if they are the one to decide what is notable or not do they let's everyone write in the encyclopedia? I think that there is no not notable site. Even the www.perdu.com have the credit to make us laught. I think an information can be not notable if it's false... but this have no link with the popularity of this infomation. I understand the need to delete entrie about porn site, or terroriste site because children can consult this encyclopedia but a comic is not a dangerous site. I don't like particulary Zelda comic but if you think that this comic is not notable i think that tintin, asterix or megatokyo (a webcomic) is not notable either. P.S. Sorry for gramatical mistakes, english not my fist language --65.92.219.161 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Marie-France Fortin[reply]

  • Comment The policies of Wikipedia decide what is notable and not-notable. This is an encyclopedia, so every article must have some reason for its existence. The article Zelda Comic is not notable according to Wikipedia policies (WP:WEB and WP:NOT). Everyone can edit this encyclopedia because that way, the greatest amount of information is available. However, certain policies here allow vandalism and non-notable articles to be removed. Notable porn sites must be kept, even though many people (myself among them) do not like them on moral grounds. Terrorist groups must be included in an encyclopedia because they are notable. Yes, children can access this website, but they must look up the pornographic page or terrorist group to access the corresponding article. Children can go to google.com and search for pornography and terrorist groups. An encyclopedia is a collection of important, notable information. (See: encyclopedia.) Srose (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep- I would just like to say that on the author's homepage, it quotes,"That link gives you the option to argue for the article's being kept, but I'm not going to push any of you to do so"...so obviously he's not pushing his fans to discuss here. I think that there is no reason whatsoever to delete this article.As for "notability"-If it wasn't noteable in the first place, why was it even given an article?!24.59.136.149 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)The Head Sheikah[reply]
      • Comment - It was not given an article; someone (probably a fan or creator of the website/comic itself) created it. The link to this discussion on the Zelda Comic website should be removed. This discussion is for people who understand what Wikipedia's policies are; no one with a vested interest or no knowledge of Wikipedian policy should be "voting". Srose (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see what this comic has done wrong. Admittedly it is not as big as Homestar Runner, but it still does have a pretty loyal following. I think back in looking at this to an 8-Bit Theatre entry I saw the other day...the way he described his surprise and joy with his following was along the same lines as the entry in question here. I'd say keep it!
  • Delete and Comment Per nom, also has many errors and doesn't sound professionally. Also, little NPOV. And 24.59.136.149, it wasn't 'given' an article, someone wrote it. Anybody can do that. Userpie 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB.--John Lake 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted. Encyclopedias are supposed to have articles on everything, and Zelda Comic is SOMETHING. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onilink3 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please make the puppetry stop. Ryulong 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why does it matter how many pages are on Wikipedia? The page will exist and if someone wants to read it, they may. If they don't, it won't come up in a search. The article's unprofessional tone can be edited. If someone takes the time to write an article about a webcomic, I can't see a good reason why it should be deleted. Also, I hardly think the author's comments on his website about it being a "little comic" can stand as evidence. 69.243.44.231 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article's an article, what's the purpose of an encyclopedia that registers only notable things? Delete the half of wikipedia then... Why have rules on what to keep and what to delete? If it is well written, just take it or do it all yourself...--83.219.107.166 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Greenyoshi[reply]
  • Comment - Take a look at Encyclopedia Brittanica. It has MUCH more stringent guidelines than Wikipedia. We have rules so that we don't have pointless articles. Encyclopedias are for notable things only. Take a look in your encyclopedia, if you have one. It doesn't have anything silly or pointless. It may have google.com because "google" is actually a verb accepted in the Oxford English Dictionary now. Your encyclopedia would not have a non-notable website in it. Everything in an encyclopedia must be able to attest to its own importance. The Zelda Comic cannot; it has no educational, social, historic, or scientific value. Srose (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Transwiki to Comixpedia if they'll have it. There's already a separate wiki for webcomics cast out of wikipedia, so even less need to clutter wikipedia with this stuff Bwithh 02:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted If one were to delete this page based on the overabbundence of webcomics on wikipedia and only have a link to the comixpedia site, then one would also have to tell the animes to go to an anime wiki, video games to a video game wiki, and so. In my belief, this goes against the "wealth of human knowdlge" idea behind wikipedia. On the other hand, removing all non-necceary detail for this comic and include basics and a link to comixpedia, would make the article easier on the eyes and closer to wikipedia's guidelines. Subsequently, to be fair, one would have to go out and do the same thing for all topic-specific articles. Plus i can't officially mark myself for or against it, being i am one of the poeple who started the article. So, you see my conflict? In Addition, "a noble effort to amass information on just about every webcomic out there" is about the wikiproject webcomics", not wikipedia. Bud0011 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnott%2C_Ontario. The article that came up when I pressed "Random Article." If Wikipedia's keeping one-sentence stuff like that up, a webcomic with a decent following deserves its own article if the authors of said article take it seriously. Which they were. Unless an article was created by virtue of a typo (which can easily happen), is in some way a true form of "vandalism," or if simply Wikipedia runs out of server space, if it's well-written it should stay up, in my opinion. Of course Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the 1st Amendment and free speech and all that, but I always thought it took to heart its spirit. This is definitely to the contrary of that. Mikintosh 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not that I say Zelda comic isn't notable, but just because an article for an encyclopedia isn't "notable" doesn't mean a thing. An encyclopedia is used to find out information on a certain subject, correct? If so, it doesn't matter if it's "notable." The real question should be "moral." Which I believe Zelda comic, for the most part, is. Besides, the Wiki is based on the Internet. The Internet has vast amounts of space, so why shouldn't it include "pointless" material?

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D'Agata

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D'Agata (April 2006).

My apologies for the relist, but honestly I fail to see how this subject meets our WP:PROF criteria for notability, the entire thing reads like a scaled down résumé. RFerreira 01:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfield Creations

"Starfield Creations" is an unregistered company name created by an amateur "furry" porn artist. This page was clearly created as a personal promotion tactic by a friend of said artist under the guise of a legitimate business organization. Considering the fact that this site is not to be used for promotion of people or their "businesses" who are not particularly famous or noteworthy, I think it should be deleted. I have seen articles taken down about the work of people far better known in the art community, and this just seems to be a sneaky way for personal promotion of a recent amateur art school graduate. KeijiIno 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn and...gross AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam."
  • Delete I'm sorry, but this line made me laugh: "Andrew Dickman's art style is diverse, mixing American cartoon style with that of Japanese anime style." Oh my God, that's never been done before! Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Michael 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to being published by Antarctic Press, one of the more notable indie comic book companies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Andrew Lenahan. Potential bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Andrew again. I must say I don't know much about notable comic publishers, so I'll take his word for it. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Your information for deletion is flaming BS and blatent defamation, I'm not a "furry porn artist" nor did I make this entry, nor did I ask a friend to make it. I just recently found out about this wikipedia entry and I find it nice to know that someone recognizes my works for once. User: AndrewDickman - 011:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a better argument is made per Adam Anania. I am not going to necessarily argue that the entry remain, but I would like to clearly state that KeijiIno's argument is completely incorrect and ridiculous. Checking the update history for this entry, I know for a fact that Andrew did not create nor has ever altered this entry. KeijiIno's argument is clearly full of bias, bitterness, and from my own knowledge of Andrew, mere lies. Neither Andrew nor I are overly familiar with Wikipedia's regulations on entries, but this entry is certainly not being used by Andrew himself for his own promotion, and KeijiIno's arguments for removing it are surely laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.130.201 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have strengthened my keep argument because it's looking like this is a bad-faith nom. This AfD and any edits associated with it are the nominator's first edits. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per first couple of editors. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of who made the page in the first place, the fact remains that it's mere exsistence is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Andrew isn't famous outside droves of slobering internet fans. I will say it again: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.". I am quoting Wikipedia's policy on this. Regardless of wether Andrew is a furry porn artist (which he most certainly is, his DA gallery is full of proof), it is still against the rules for Andrew, or any of his fans, to make a page on Wikipedia about him. Being a small flea on the dog's hind quarters of the animation industry does not merit recognition on an online encyclopedia. KeijiIno
  • STRONG DELETE This person and her organization might have a lot of fans who have come to defend it, but the fact still remains that Wikipedia is not meant to be used for personal promotion or the promotion of friends and friends' businesses. Please review the above point: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam." This was quoted from the Wikipedia user guide. It clearly states, whether said individual being defamed or not, that the promotion of an individual or his/her friends or businesses are not to be promoted here. Antarctic Press is a little known niche publisher and thus not notable as would be DC Comics or Marvel. Anyone can get amateur works published there. Bearing these facts in mind, I agree this is not an individual noteworthy enough to have a listing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Cabo (talk • contribs)
Comment user's first edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, unverifiable neologism.  RasputinAXP  c 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall goth

Unverifiable OR, no reason this page should exist pschemp | talk 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've all heard the term before... but see WP:V, the issue is whether it's ever been given a meaningful definition or information in print. Which doesn't seem to be the case. Verifiability isn't optional. --W.marsh 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. It's been redirected before. The people who enjoy original research undo the redirect. "Goths" instead keep insisting that there's some meaningful distinction between a "real goth" and a "mall goth", but reliable sources for this have not been produced. Friday (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term is common knowledge, and doesn't need a print citation. Lots of articles don't cite sources; they don't all end up in AFD. I oppose the hidden snob motive, and therefore vote to keep. Bacchiad 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, but a source must be able to be produced. See WP:V, which clearly states that this is non-negotiable. --W.marsh 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and if it is common knowledge, finding a verifiable source should be a rather easy undertaking.--Isotope23 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete CSD A7 no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 04:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock (rapper)

Non-notable rapper. Prod was removed. Not showing any Google hits for this guy. Aplomado talk 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete all and spammer blocked. Kimchi.sg 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enableit

Due to its generic name it is hard to Google for information. However, I have spotted nothing that indicates notability. Likewise, its website is full of corporate speak but lacks hard data to underpin notability. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Delete. BlueValour 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete but merge a solid option. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice of Thunder Child

Well now, boys and girls, I'm not quite sure why this article should be deleted. The best reason I can think of is that this article is a piece of fancruft redundant to the well-written thoughtful article HMS Thunder Child. If anyone wants more information on the Thunder Child, they only have to download the novel from Project Gutenberg. Please give me your considered opinions. --die Baumfabrik 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has been around since Mid-2005 and refers to part of a notable article. If you're not sure why it should be deleted, why did you nominate it? Alphachimp talk 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title appears nowhere in The War of the Worlds, so it's either fancruft or original research, take your pick. In addition, it forks material that by rights should appear in the War of the Worlds (novel) article. Merge at the least. Slac speak up! 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I nominated it for deletion because I thought it was a poorly-written article with an unnecessary level of detail about one aspect of a classic novel: I would classify that as cruft. Everything encyclopaedic about the ship is already contained in HMS Thunder Child and I can't imagine anyone searching explicitly for the phrase 'sacrifice of thunder child'. Just because the article has has passed some threshold of longevity doesn't necessarily mean that it should stay. --die Baumfabrik 02:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merging anything worthwhile to HMS Thunder Child. Dlyons493 Talk 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — all information in the article is sourced from the novel; the article is no more original research than any other article about a novel, or for that matter, a movie or a game. "An unnecessary level of detail"? Since when is that a fault? That the article is something that the nominator "would classify ... as cruft"? The nominator's personal opinion is not a valid criterion for deletion. A nomination that begins with the admission that the nominator himself is "not quite sure why this article should be deleted" needs to be speedy kept to give the nominator a chance to review the deletion criteria and find a way to work within policy. ➥the Epopt 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the article is original research; the article itself is not about a novel, movie or game. What lacuna does the article HMS Thunderchild have that necessitates this article? Forking is only acceptable when the main article has an unacceptable level of detail; there is nothing of the sort in War of The Worlds (novel). The event has no notability outside of the context of the book - why then is the article about it outside of the article on the book? As far as personal opinions go, in every case they determine what is deleted and what is kept. And the nominator has explained their reasons on this page. Slac speak up! 09:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very well known novel can have articles on details in the plot such as this, it is about the battle not just the ship --Astrokey44 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. We only need one article on Thunder Child, and this is the logical one to get rid of because for all that it is sourced from the book, it is essentially a plot summary of one part of the book with apparently novel inferences. We don't do plot summaries. The level of detail is excessive for a fictional plot device form one book. I am a huge SF fan, I love the books of Wells, but this level of details is just too much. I removed the cover image of the Wayne album (of which I am also a huge fan) since fair use does not allow it to be used other than in the article on the album itself. Farewell, Thunder Child... Just zis Guy you know? 10:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well the nominator may not be sure why this should be deleted... but I am: as redundancy that contains an element of originial research per "although the action is never given a name in Wells's own text". Any information verifiable from the book about the actual battle could be merged by interested parties to the already existing HMS Thunderchild article. It is a short enough article that it could easily hold the content of Sacrifice of Thunder Child (minus the title coined by the article originator of course).--Isotope23 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per die Baumfabrik. -- Kjkolb 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to HMS Thunder Child as unnecessary duplicate or fork. --MCB 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HMS Thunder Child, also, don't nominate things if you don't know why you should. --PresN 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Yes, a plot synopsis created by reading a book is original research. To not be original research, it needs to be based on some previously published reliable source's description of the book. GRBerry 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to HMS Thunder Child, a single article with all the content serves us better than two separates ones. --Stormie 05:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with HMS Thunder Child, as duplication should be avoided, but please keep WOW subjects in Wikipedia Expatkiwi 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I enjoyed reading this article so I'd selfishly like to keep it around :) Plot summaries are not original research. Haukur 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per MCB. --ZsinjTalk 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum (weather)

This page is about internet forums that discuss the weather. I'm not sure whether such a specified page is necessary or encyclopedic; to my knowledge, we don't have pages about sports forums, music forums, politics forums, etc.. So, I decided to send it here to get some discussion and consensus as to whether this should be allowed to exist on its own, be merged into internet forum and deleted, or simply deleted outright. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy deleted by Kirill Lokshin after db-nocontent was placed by Conrad Devonshire. - Richardcavell 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists such as this are of minimal importance on Wikipedia. I highly doubt anyone would ever enter this in search or that its use would be very purposeful. Listing three websites does not constitute an article. Michael 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerley's

The subject is not that notable, and the article doesn't appear to contribute a whole lot to wikipedia. It's had a whole year to expand. - Richardcavell 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Coast Radio

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fly (roller coaster)

Text on this page is identical to that in Rides at Paramount Canada's Wonderland#Fly. No need for the duplication, unless there's something else notable about the ride? Dvandersluis 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

Non-notable bio, appears to be part of an attempt to create a walled garden, possibly created by a firm. --InShaneee 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krayola (Timesplitters)

Fails WP:NN and WP:FICT. Dionyseus 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Game

I removed the speedy because "advertising" is not a speedy criterion; however, I do believe it should be deleted. I tried {{prod}} but author removed the tag so I'm sending it here. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Love

Relatively non-notable bio, possibly created by a firm. --InShaneee 02:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO implies that non-notability can result in article deletion. --Usgnus 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you mean that lack of notability by itself is not grounds for deletion? --Usgnus 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those who believe the "non-notability" should be a criterion for deletion interpret WP:BIO as implying that non-notability can result in deletion. It does not say it explicitly. And Wikipedia:Notability is explicit about Wikipedia not having a policy on notability. Those who believe that "non-notability" usually means "I've never heard of him/her/it" or "This is something I'm not interested in" do not accept that an inferrence from WP:BIO should be accepted as policy. Ground Zero | t 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation. --Usgnus 19:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily qualfies as notable per WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". --Usgnus 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs some cleanup and expansion, but he's certainly notable. He was also one of the top figures in the Canadian Alliance as a key advisor to Stockwell Day. He's not just an Alberta thing — he's a nationally notable figure, and I don't buy for a fraction of a second that anybody who claims to know the first thing about Canadian politics in the past decade wouldn't know who he is. Keep. Bearcat 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words For Alcohol Intoxication

Dictdef/Listcruft John Nagle 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete. abakharev 05:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Music Online

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

No assertion of notability. Article has been entirely created and managed by Phefner (talk · contribs) (who is Patrick Hefner, President/Founder of Independent Music Online, the article's subject) and Knightmb (talk · contribs), whose sole edits have been to this article and to other articles to include links to this one and to the website itself. Article is entirely being used to promote the website in question, and violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CORP, and WP:AB. Meets speedy deletion criteria. -- ChrisB 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google search to gauge notability is cumbersome, given the non-unique nature of the company's name. However, limiting to searches unique to the site itself:
  • "Independent Music Online" and "Vorbis" (the site's primary format) = 89 hits
  • "Independent Music Online" and "Tennessee" (the company's location) = 142 hits
  • "Independent Music Online" and "myspace" (mentioned on the website) = 169 hits
-- ChrisB 03:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of notability have been included in the References section to this article as per Wikipedia's guidelines. This article is not an autobiography of Patrick Hefner, although I (Patrick) am the primary author, although others have contributed to the editing of this article as well. Vorbis is not the primary format of the site in question. This article is NOT being used to promote the site in question. If that were the case then there would be external links pointing to it. We've taken strides to make sure that as many links as possible, point to other Wikipedia articles, and not to the website in question. This article does not meet all the criteria for speedy deletion.

Allow time for others to contribute to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phefner (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 July 2006

Response: Not to beat this to death, but the assertion that others have contributed is essentially false, demonstrated by the article's history. Apart from Phefner and Knightmb, all other non-cursory edits to the article were made by IP addresses that resolve to Nashville (the company's location) and whose contributions consisted almost entirely of edits to this article or to other articles related to this one. (Don't use the ARIN links to verify the IP addresses' location - do a traceroute and you'll see that they actually resolve to Nashville.)
  • 66.43.131.114 = Speakeasy DSL BNA (BNA = airport code for Nashville)
  • 69.17.124.186 = Speakeasy DSL BNA
  • 66.43.131.114 = Frost-Arnett.com, located in Nashville
  • 12.107.242.5 = DCCUsa.com, located in Franklin, Tennessee
All other edits were simply to make a word adjustment or to add a deletion template. -- ChrisB 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are missing the point, doesn't matter how many "google hits" it has, it's well known for what it does and anything looking for information on it be it history or what they are doing now, wikipedia has the info for them. I'm sure there are enough violations to remove 99% of the articles on wikipedia but all I'm saying is if you want to delete this one, then delete the other dozen articles that are similar to it which you think is nothing more than a promotion or advertising. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_music_stores#Online_Music_Store_Comparison_table and rid wikiepedia all of those violating articles like itunes, allofmp3.com, etc. Last I saw allofmp3.com has a wikipedia article and no one is really sure if that's even a legal business to begin with. My vote is in to keep it here since you have all those others, if you want to remove this one, then set and example and remove all the other advertisers as well please. - susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.243.83 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 July 2006

Response:Please note that the above user's contributions include adding links into other articles to the website in question. Possible sockpuppet. -- ChrisB 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think that a company located in Nashville would have support from surrounding Nashville people? Like duh? I say leave it in, they have my vote, rock on you guys, dont let the man get you down. Hey ChrisB are you that guy from the UK that has all those iTunes links to stories? I saw you in google, geez, that doesn't look suspcious huh? Maybe it was so quiet until you stried up the hornets nest and now all the supporters are coming out for them. Doris—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.17.124.125 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Please abide by the No personal attacks and be civil to others policies. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, go ahead and delete the article. This has gotten way out of hand. Phefner 05:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bob's Brewery

Founded in 2006, no indications that it meets WP:CORP, no reliable sources. Please consider Alan Bob's as part of this nomination, as it is merely a pointer to this article. --Hetar 03:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Holtzman

Failes WP:BIO. He's got a famous dad; he graduated with honors; he has a list of projects; but he has zero awards, honors, or other recognition indicating notability beyond that of his peers. Rklawton 03:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Analogue

Article doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFY as it doesn't state any reliable sources. Article also appears to be vanity and possible spam as the creator of the article is actually mentioned in the article (Federico.Paoletti (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)). This article has also been created in the Italian Wikipedia by a user of the same name (see it:Audio Analogue). —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 03:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of programs broadcast by networks

This is the logical progression of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, for which I voted "keep". However, I'm a much bigger fan of consistency than I am of any of these lists. The lists in question:

I stole this list from the previous AfD, so it may not be as inclusive as would be preferable. I'm starting this AfD backwards, making this page and then putting the templates on the articles, so if this doesn't seem to be working right, feel free to fix it. --Maxamegalon2000 03:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wait! There's more!

Though it probably doesn't make a difference, I should note that User:Nagle's vote below came before I made these additions to the list. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more:

That's enough additions for me. I should note that both User:Trialsanderrors's vote and User:Ardenn's vote below came before these additions to the list, although I doubt it would matter. --Maxamegalon2000 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to notify everyone who expressed interest in the precident set by the Sci Fi list's deletion. I'm guessing they'd have found it anyway, and that this will be a populous AfD regardless. --Maxamegalon2000 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "Wikipedia is not a TV guide" line is nonsense, as none of these lists purport to be a TV guide. Rather, they are simply an index of programs that have, at one time or another, been broadcast by a particular station, and provide a useful guide for people, say, interested in reading about programs by the BBC or ABC. Rebecca 04:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On one hand I'm tempted by deleting per WP:NOT and there is no need for these lists if we have proper categories. On the other hand, the categories are currently not developed enough to cover for the loss. By the way, there is no indication that this nomination is done in bad faith and I think that claim should either be retracted or carefully explained. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now. I agree these violate WP:NOT, but we could probably use some categories to replace these lists. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. I just read through WP:NOT again, and reread the relevant bits to make sure I didn't miss something. The "not paper" proviso seems far more relevant here than not "TV/Radio Guide" as written. None of these are remotely about what's on tv tonight, upcoming network promotions, etc., which is clearly the gist of that heading. These lists are better organized than the categories, and therefore more useful. I've only known of their existence for a day, and already I've found them educational and a potentially good research tool. (I've been trying to piece together what was on Nick at Nite in 1985-1986 for my own use.) The ones I looked at need filling out, not deletion. On the other hand, if categories could be rigorously created and populated with everything from every deleted list, right down to the subheadings, I would be satisfied. This seems unlikely to happen, however, because many older shows have no articles to this point. Incidentally, I find Maximegalon's conduct here very much in good faith and highly ethical. This AFD proceeds logically from the Sci-Fi one, and notifying people on both sides of the previous vote is as fair as can be. Thanks! Karen 05:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but salvage information if possible/necessary. Just because the lists as constituted aren't encyclopedic doesn't mean all of the information within them is de facto worthless. -- nae'blis (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where would they go? They're not TV guides - they're lists of programs over time, and merging them with the station pages would bloat those articles beyond belief. Rebecca 06:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Karen. The lists are useful collections of information and not random assortions. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Karen and Rebecca. Really now, they're really quite referential and definately helpful as they are: lists and guides. They shed light on a history within a channel by listing what was aired and still being aired and certainly not a mere television guide as TV Guide, by no means...
There are many lists and they do serve a purpose. Deleting them so swiftly without remarking on their potential if they're somewhat short of that would be unjust to those who have spent time compiling them (although I know effort doesn't necessarily qualify as being encyclopaedicly valueable, they knew the benefit of having these things to their corresponding channel lists)... Like the many editors of the forementioned AfD, who managed to sort things through well-enough considering.
Though, just one thing to keep in mind.... There should be some sources cited if there isn't already, since one can write something up for an obscure channel and the reader would not have anything to refer back onto to verify these listings. DrWho42 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. tmopkisn tlka 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yeah, WP is not paper, and someone, somewhere, might find these lists useful, someday. But utility is not the point, nor is storage. I'm seeing mostly nn items compiled into nn lists. Tychocat 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I'm seeing notable items (e.g., historically important tv shows), given additional notability by association with a particular network's history. Certain networks have cult status themselves, and these lists help show history and patterns of what the networks have done. Chronologies would be better, though.Karen 07:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I don't find these interesting" is not a reason to delete, Tychocat. As you can see here, many of us do find these lists useful, and your contention is thus void. Rebecca 08:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I don't find these interesting" is not a reason to delete. I agree. My opinion to "Delete per nom" was meant to show that I find this stuff listcruft, and a violation of WP:NOT. I guess my opinion exists despite the void. Tychocat 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what categories are for. GassyGuy 08:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Partly procedural. This doesn't seem to be well covered by the AfD guide on bundled nominations (which I learned after I screwed up a bundled nom). None of the five bulleted examples are comparable to this situation and the bolded instruction that "if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't" suggests not bundling these. In any case, these sixty or so pages were the result of sometimes enormous effort, with some of them having over 250 edits in the history (like this one). If we're going to wipe out this much work, it ought to be in separate AfDs, or at the very least with more test cases. We owe that much to the people who've worked on these lists. I think they should also be kept on the merits per Karen's argument.--Chaser T 08:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into categories, this would only delete the current schedules in the articles, which shouldn't be here anyway as wikipedia is not a TV guide. -- Koffieyahoo 08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that while some of these have current schedules, most of them provide organized information. See List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim, for example, which contains a notes column with useful information and grouped by theme. From WP:lists (but not WP:LISTS), a guideline for when to create lists, Lists on Wikipedia have three main purposes: Information, Navigation, and Development. Number 2 doesn't really apply anymore because of Categories, but for quite a few of these, either 1 (Info) or 3 applies very well. For info: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. It's clear, for example, that the above mentioned Adult Swim list is a valuable information source, grouping information by theme, chronologically, and containing significant notes on the programs. Moreover, a number of these lists, like List of programs broadcast by Alpha TV, for example, clearly fulfill the development aspect of Lists cited by Wikipedia as just reason to create a list (Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.) All of these reasons should make it obvious why these lists should be kept. Some of them seem to be better replaced by Categories, but there are many lists proposed for deletion that clearly fulfill one or two of the above reasons to create a list as per accepted WP guidelines. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If these were all simply lists of programs I would have no issue saying "delete". However, as Yom notes, there is usually relevant additional information. For instance, List of programs broadcast by Global (a Canadian network which, like many Canadian networks, tends to buy the rights to more American shows than it can fit on) lists not only past, present, and future series, but also indicates the status of shows might air on that network depending on other factors. Others indicate what I consider relevant information about when programs aired, e.g. first-run vs. syndication. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - I also take issue with the application of "WP is not a TV guide" insofar as listing general information about a channel's current base schedule. I'm not saying we should have schedules for the likes of ESPN where the idea of a season schedule is essentially meaningless. But even we were to have 2006-07 United States network television schedule-type articles for all countries and channels covered, that's just the planned schedule as of the outset of the season. I consider the current main schedule of a channel, exclusive of any specials or special airings, not to be indiscriminate, and relevant to discussion of the competitive business of television. Whether or not they're relevant content in a "list" is debatable, although it seems preferable in contrast to a new "Current United States television schedules" page listing every network and cable channel known to man. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. WP 11:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists like these are an interesting way to track the history and current status of a network. I would like to see them updated more frequently, however. Kirjtc2 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make short style essay about what these lists should contain. As per WP:NOT they should not be used to tell when a show is on, or promotional information. These lists should be limited to historical information, while the website of the station can contain current events/shows. If I caught some glimpses of something on a channel a year ago, such a list is useful. --GunnarRene 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure one can make an argument for an individual list that doesn't apply to all lists. Assumming that every network is deserving of a list, such an argument would refer to the quality of the individual list, and that's not what AfD is for ideally. I'm not sure that the quality of an individual list makes the list any more or less appropriate for this encyclopedia. --Maxamegalon2000 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a personal attack? I guess I am forced to admire your commitment to this topic but please refrain from the realms of rank WP:AGF failure etc. Didn't read the above comments? Misinterpretation of guidelines? For one thing, I read the above. Secondly, I am "misinterpreting" a policy if anything, no guidelines here. Thirdly, I checked out the (several) articles of relevance to my geographical locale. Nothing about these articles convinces me that they could not (a) go on unchecked forever in themselves (b) proliferate in number to other TV stations worldwide ad nauseam, and (c) not be deleted without any harm done to Wikipedia. AfD is a place for discussion, is it not? Not just agreeing with everyone who previously commented, right? Well then. Still a delete IMO, sorry, per cited policy. --DaveG12345 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists of tv shows are important information as to past and present activity of the station and as to the station's style of show.-Sfvia2003
  • The List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN should be merge with the main ABS-CBN article and should be modified to fit it with the ABS-CBN article... --peads 05:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful as tracking lists, to see what shows WP has/has not got articles on. Potentially useful as a finding resource, for people who know the network a show was on, but not its precise name. Useful as a guide to the kind of output the network showed. Regarding lists vs categories: there's a place for both - lists can be a lot more systematic, and show redlinks. So Keep (and re-instate the Sci-Fi channel, which appears to have been deleted on the admin's personal view, rather than the balance of the Afd). Jheald 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep The lists are quite useful in finding out what any particular network is showing or has showed over its history. To say is a TV guide is incorrect as it is not acting as a TV guide as it doesn’t show actual channel/time/date stuff. They do go to show who published or created any particular television show by this thinking, oher lists would also have to be deleted as well, it is the same thing as deleting the list of products offered by Microsoft, Boeing, Ford or Adobe. The lists are quite useful in seeing who created what and for comparing genres. A TV guide would show the time, date and channel any given program will be transmitted. This is more historical and cross-referencing here. Such information is not generally in a TV guide. The lists are a nice consolidation of information which one would otherwise have to look for in many different places. Bdelisle 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum Being that television programming is quite ingrained in to the culture of many countries, and the at many of the programming can be comparative of other programming having such a list makes for a great index. Also like said above, keep the current lists and re-instate the Sci-Fi channel programming list. Truly encyclopedic? Probably not. Of interest to people? Seems to be. There is a lot of stuff that would not go in to a traditional encyclopedia in Wikipedia. That is what makes it so interesting. I believe that a lot of AfD is done over-aggressively, much seems to be based on opinion which often seems to be counter-neutral itself. If we are truly encyclopedic then 90% of the pages dealing with television shows, programs, and stations should be deleted; as should most books, movies, biographical stubs and company lists. Bdelisle 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see people wanting to consult these lists; in fact, IIRC the whole idea of them was started precisely because people were adding exhaustive lists of past and present shows to the network articles themselves, which started to disrupt the quality of those articles. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on them, but I do find the "Wikipedia is not TV Guide" argument unconvincing, as that's not what these lists are trying to do. All in all, I don't see any reason to vote anything other than keep, although I could be swayed by a more convincing argument against them than I've seen here so far. Bearcat 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I consult these lists all the time. Plus, Wikipedia might not be a TV Guide, but a program cancelled years ago is hardly going to appear on television. I would continue, but Bdelisle sums up the rest of my argument pretty well. Jorcoga 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Information shouldn't be erased from here just because it is plentiful. As was said, this isn't paper, and a helpful database isn't the same as a 'TV Guide.' I can't believe we are even having this discussion. --64.198.46.28 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - why are these pages gone when the consensus, to me a slightly newbie wikipedian seems to be on the side of keeping them? Confused as to process. BTW I think that the amount of posters/traffic/etc. would indicate that there is demand for this content, it's useful, it's needed, and it evolved through the wikipedian process. this is a repository for information of which all of these pages are exactly that. anyone using these pages as their local listings would be quite disappointed as it takes a while to get them updated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxdxt (talk • contribs)
  • keep please these lists are extremely useful Yuckfoo 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a category can complement but not replace a list with red links in it. Also, many of these lists are annotated with additional information that cannot be represented in a category page. Granted, some need significant cleaning and expanding to meet the standard of others, but on the whole they contain information that cannot be contained in a category, and would bloat both the list of categories at the bottom of the program articles and the relevent network articles if it was attempted to be merged there. --Scott Davis Talk 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete! These are extremely useful articles and there is no reason to delete them.Kogsquinge 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uline

WP:CORP Non-notable company. Privately held, family owned. No hits in Business Week, Fortune, or Forbes. No hits in PR Newswire. Only articles found are in local paper and mention lease of warehouse employing 40 people. More info on talk page. John Nagle 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007

This article was prodded but deprodded based on a comment on its talk page. The original prod reason, which I concur with, was: Crystal ball, user has created future months and dates before, and been told not to (See User Talk:Jose and Ricardo). (Microsoft entries are DEFINATELY crystal ball, from past experience.) Delete. Kimchi.sg 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of FBI investigated subjects

This list is way way imcomplete and to re-orginzaiaze it is uneeded. Plus, alot of these pages linked on this page have nothing mentioned on being investigated on the FBI and on top of it... this list have no citations what so ever. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Planes

Delete per WP:NN & WP:OR NickSentowski 04:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas De Jong

fails: NPOV; verified; notable (googling gets 330 results) Carl.bunderson 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy-close as copyvio and list at WP:CP. MCB 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harding*

Possible vanity entry, definite WP:COPYVIO, as entire text is lifted from this page. Googling ("Stephen Harding" +"New Dance Group") brings back only 9 hits, while ("Stephen Harding" choreographer) returns 141, 71 unique, and of those, not all are the same person. First return is this article. MikeWazowski 04:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baisong Huang

I really think this nn bio is grounds for speedy deletion, but apparently some users think it's more on the borderline, so I am bringing it here for some community discussion. He really hasn't done anything significant (a degree, being a TA, and some research work) and is a ways away from WP:BIO. --Hetar 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur: The Movie

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This movie has no listing at IMDB, and there are no sources cited in the article. One year is pretty quick to turn a movie around, so in the absence of an IMDB listing or similar, it looks like some combination of speculation, wishful thinking, or a hoax. —C.Fred (talk)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iposte.org

failes WP:WEB Alexa has never heard of it. Google says nothing else links to it. Rklawton 05:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 articles. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New World Theatre, New World Theater

Possible advertising page for non-notable off-off-Broadway theatre. "New World Theatre" is a very common name - Google search on name +Brooklyn brings back only 179 returns, 75 unique, and not all those are even about this theatre. Delete MikeWazowski 05:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added New World Theater as duplicate of the same information. MikeWazowski 05:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Dickerson

Non-notable actress, part of a rash of articles recently created surrounding New World Theatre. IMDb does have a listing, but its only one credit. Google search brings up 139 returns, 75 unique, and not all appears to be same person. Delete MikeWazowski 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was redirect. If an article would make a good redirect, just redirect instead of bringing it to AfD. And suit fetish is a damn good redirect for the suit and tie fetishism article. ;-) -- Kjkolb 07:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suit fetish

Dictionary definition. At best, this is a merge with Suit and Tie fetishism. Grinnblade 05:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of strike-breakers

This public pillorying of people who are allegedly undesirable to a particular group of people :: is it appropriate on Wikipedia? And various links and redirect pages pointing to it. Anthony Appleyard 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Listcruft, in my opinion. Plus, it does seem kind of like a hit list, if you will. -- Grinnblade 05:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use of the word scabs makes it clear it's meant as a POV list. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per trialsanderrors. tmopkisn tlka 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 07:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also, it is unlikely to ever have much beyond professional athletes and a few actors. -- Kjkolb 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless POV list, bordering on attack page. the wub "?!" 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the entry, with no intention of an attack or 'hit list.' The genesis behind it is that I was reading the article on strikebreaking and 'scabs' and remembering a few of my favorite sports players had actually crossed the picket lines and made successes of themselves. I thought it would be interesting to see how many strike breakers actually made it. Certainly -- the initial use of the word "scabs" on the list was changed with no objection from me, simply to Strikebreakers and it has since been combined in the title. I still have no objection to simply listing it as famous strikebreakers. Really, I was just using the term as it was being used on that other page and how it was used in the media. I really don't have an axe to grind here at all. I think a POV is being imputed by the above into the article - again, I think it is notable that many famous athletes, actors, musicians were involved in these labor disputes in this way. It is definitely part of the story. I do hope people decide to keep the list and update it -- there are several other notable strike breakers that are non-athletes/actors. I just haven't had the time to go ahead and do the research. In the meantime, as an expression of good faith -- I'll go ahead and change the substance to get rid of the offending word - "scabs". --Gopple 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me that the list serves only to attack members of list. I can't see this going anywehere good (even as strikebreakers instead of "scabs") --Alphachimp talk 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you're reading a bias into what it means to be a strike breaker. Is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? Or is the point that it shouldn't matter--only that its part of the historical story. I guess the other idea is to incorporate it into the Strike action article. --Gopple 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how this is a "public shaming", as you've linked to twice now - Do you think the actions of those who worked during a strike shameful? That seems especially POV. I think Jimbobl's idea is a good one -- context is always important -- but so are the players in major economic/business standoff. I disagree that saying "X number of people crossed a picket line on Y date." The fact that every person on that list is notable enough to have their own wikipedia entry shows that its a part of their biography and the history of union/management standoffs in the United States.--Gopple 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has plenty of relevant, publically accessable truthful (non-slanderous) content relevant to sports players. For example, every baseball strike breaker cannot join the MLBPA and thus their name and likeness can't be licensed by the union. This is the reason players like Kevin Millar cannot be represented in video games. I think this article does correctly record valuable historical information about the players. I do think maybe each strike should be listed separately maybe with additional neutral point of view introductory paragraph, listing the views of the different parties (e.g., players union vs. players. vs. owners vs. fans) for each group of strike-breakers to put it in some context.--Jimbobl 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no point in maintaining this (unmaintainable) list other than as a wall of shame. Any relevent info can go into the respective articles about the strikes. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, arbitrary, borderline attack page (regardless of the title of the article). Agent 86 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These people made a choice to publicly cross a picket line. All this page does is acknowledge this as fact. Nobody is passing judgement on them here. Simply stating facts. Isn't that what wikipedia is? Deleting this page is nothing more than hiding the skeletons in the closet of some popular sports heroes. Wikipedia is about the TRUTH, it is not a public relations agent for athletes. 04:26, 16 July 2006, User:71.197.188.244
  • Does anyone propose deleting Hitler entries because his actions present him in a poor light to readers? (04:28, 16 July 2006) (edit), User:71.197.188.244
  • Delete as listcruft. Kukini 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aguerriero.--John Lake 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Listcruft, as almost totally excluding historically worthwhile strikebreaking, as seen in socially relevant unions, where Ronald Reagan would have to be listed for his part in the ATC strike breaking. a bunch of jocks who want money more than union strength, and being referred to as 'scabs' in the list shows incredible bias.ThuranX 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recap episode (Air episode)

Delete, While there is still some debate on this TV show, whether or not to keep individual episode articles, I would think this one could safely be deleted. It's a recap episode with no new animation/footage/etc. In other words, there's nothing more to say about it, other than it was a recap episode, which can easily be done on List of Air episodes. Ned Scott 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could understand some keep votes here, but honestly, there are 13 words in this article (excluding the table), it does really satisfy my need for information. tmopkisn tlka 06:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am slowly improving the air episode articles. Thats the unfinished version. --Cat out 10:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the air episode series is under developement. I haven't had the time to complete the air episode series. This afd nomination should be held after I write that article. --Cat out 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Breeze (Air episode). That will be the length of this episode (although possibly more). when I am done with it. I am currently on vacation with no access to Air DVDs of mine.
    • Air has a very complex story, the recap episode will allow me to summarise the important points of the entier plot and explain inter-episode referances, how does one seemingly insignificant event in a previous episode affect the rest significantly. Stuff like:
      • why is that 'stupid' crow finding yukitos puppet have any significance?
      • what is the "magical feather" and how does relate to Kano, Michiru and Kanna?
      • Why does Misuzu's sudden crying in Wing has any significance? (reasons are revealed much later as this is a result of a 1000 year curse)
    --Cat out 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't those details go on Air (TV series)? This is an article about a recap episode, not a recap article. -- Ned Scott 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Air TV series should be mostly talking about the production of the show etc. At least thats what I had in mind. the plot is too complex and long to fit in Air (TV) and leave room for production related suff. Excel Saga has almost no referance to the plot for instance (and its a good article). Articles should be kept at sizes smaller than 32kb if possible as there are unfortunute people stuck with 56k throughout the planet. Excel without a plot is 38 kilobytes. --Cat out 10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but I disagree. One, I disagree with your logic of article structure, and two, I disagree with Air having a complex plot. It was a tear-jerker, sure, but not hard to understand. But that's besides the point. Using a an article about a recap episode to talk about over-all plot elements is quite inappropriate. If it is too big for the main article then something like Plot Summary of Air should be made, like how is done with Eureka Seven and Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (anime). In fact, I'd favor that type of format over individual episode articles, or maybe even merging articles that share the same sub-plot arc, like eps 2,3,4 and then 5,6 and such. Again, I'm getting off topic, but you get my point about this article. Also, some of what you suggested sounds like WP:OR. -- Ned Scott 11:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plot Summary of Air, recap episode no real diference. A recap episode is a plot summary by definition. There is no original research issues when relating Misuzus condition to Kanna, is there? Excel has a basic plot. The only "real" plot is a world domination attempt, but no serious effort is made to that end throughout the series. Air on the other hand has a complex plot. All episodes are related to a degree. Even the Kano and Minagi arcs that kinda dont fit in like the rest (as they are supposed to be seperate endings for the game I believe) actualy relate to Kanna. There is a lot of referances back and forth which in my view should be covered (and the recap episode does a decent job covering this) --Cat out 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no solid plan on how to write the recap article. I wasn't geneticaly engineered with the recap episode engraved to my genes. I first have to rewatch it. If you have suggestions in improving the recap episode, feel free to do so in the articles talk page. If after the improvement drive there is a posibily to merge the article or move it elsewhere, that posibility can be investigated then. This nom is premature. --Cat out 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the nomination stands. A recap episode does summarize the plot, but an article about a recap episode is not about the plot, it's about the episode. -- Ned Scott 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination should be made after the articles improvement. The recap episode covers the most important issues. The episode is nothing but a plot summary as you point out and an article about such an episode by definition is a summary of the plot... --Cat out 11:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have shorther articles about movies that will hit the theaters in several years as we do not know when the production will be complete. Star Trek XI is one such example. It is not deleted because it has a real potential to grow even though it only has rumors atm.. --Cat out 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's kinda a gray area, as a page about an episode shoudl be about the episode, and a recap episode recaps the series to date, but if you're just going to turn it into a plot summary page, it should go into the main series page. Also, if you want to prove that the article has value, you better hurry up and write it. --PresN 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am exploring many possibilities since the deletion rationale is that recap episode itself isnt worthy of an article. I disagree with that assesment but am open to suggestions. I have no solid agenda atm on how precisely ı will do the recap episode. --Cat out 09:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concensus. Editors on wikipedia should generally be given time to flesh out articles that they write. "Generally" is the key. Some types of articles which have tendencies to be trivial in nature (i.e. television episodes) should be developed in a way that conforms to concensus guidelines and policies created for those subject areas. The general concensus for these has been: 1) Create the article for the main series. 2) When and if section of that article overwhelms the main article, that section should be split into a new article and summarize section on main page. 3) When and if individual entities of a section in the secondary page become too large, split into a third article. I know the editor who created the article disagrees with these guidlines and policies. However, because those guidelines were based on concensus decisions and I find them to be very reasonable and quite useful to quality control at the project... my suggestion is to delete. Most of the current air episode articles are this type of one sentence article. Even the example of a "completed" episode page is very short and could easily merged into the list of air episodes. --Kunzite 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not disagree with guidelines/policies (just merely ignoring them as per "ignore all rules policy"), and I do not believe you know me (nor would that be relevant). Multiply the size of Breeze with 15 (we have 15 epidoes) and your number will easily exeed 32kb warranting this kind of seperation. I need to be given time to write the articles. People had been complaining ever since I created the stup pages which I intend to expand. See: Talk:Town (Air episode) --Cat out 08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your math is wrong. The Breeze episode is 1.8kb. There are 15 Episodes. That makes 27kb, not 32.
Secondly, the size argument is invalid. WP:SIZE states that the strict 32kb rule may be ignored for such things as lists. Thus, if that is your sole reason for creating seperate articles, I will happily go on a merging binge this weekend, just for you. Even if you choose to ignore another concensus policy, there are other ways to create lists of episodes with these extradionarily short plot summaries on wikipedia. The list could be divided into episodes arcs, or in half, or thirds. I find episode lists that concatenated on one page far easier to read, edit, keep track of vandalism, and more succinct than articles spread over a myriad of pages.
You stated that the above referenced episode as an example of an expanded article. If 1.8kb (with some chunky template code) is the intended size of this set of articles, then I say they all need to be merged no matter how much time you're given to expand.
Finally, per the comment of my talk page, I am not making personal comments about you, I am making comments about the quality of your work of wikipedia. I feel that a poor choice was made in creating this and its sibling articles when a handful of articles would suffice. --Kunzite 02:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can a recap episode have any encyclopedic value? It adds nothing to the anime itself, let alone here. There was no new scenes, except the "next episode" preview (which is non-nontable), just a mash up of scenes from the series, and that offers no new interpretation or suggestions of anything that hasn't been brought up from the series. If there is any, then it's original research. _dk 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting something from the episode is not original research. How can any episode article not have encyclopedic value? Recap episode made many inter episode referances which were not all that clear otherwise for instance. --Cat out 09:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you just quote it, then it's just a plot summary (and thus does not deserve its own article). If you add your own explanation on how the sequencing of the scenes makes the theme clear, then it's original research. _dk 09:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for bothering to respond to you. --Cat out 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay man. Have a cup of tea. _dk 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's nothing encyclopaedic here to merge, so counting any merge verdicts as deletes. Proto::type 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Empire at War space units

WP:NOT a game guide. BryanG(talk) 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Of Lightspeed

A NN band. Dakart 06:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete NN band. A7. Dionyseus 07:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2029-30 NBA season

Deprodded with edit summary "deprod, we have a 2010-2011 season article!" True enough, but there the crystal ballism ends. Someone can write this article in 2025 when wikipedia reaches one billion articles. As of now, it's just out of place.--Chaser T 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big (title)

Dicdef for a not-really-notable usage of the word "big" (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Completely unsourced, as well. The term is used, I know, but do we need an article on this use of it? Originally tagged for speedy, editor contested it, so now it's here. Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've never heard it used, although I guess it kind of makes sense. However, the article itself admits to it only being used at a cult level, and the title holds no importance outside of the cult world, very much unlike Sir and Doctor would (the two words which the article compared itself to.) tmopkisn tlka 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Michael 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's in a tiny corner of WP, but the article comports with my own knowledge and is a little more than a dicdef. Sources would be good. Comporting with my own knowledge doesn't meet WP:V.--Chaser T 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as dicdef. I know the term is used, but I don't think it needs an article. Tychocat 07:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. --Huon
  • Keep It is used on an everyday basis, not just in footballing circles. It is even referenced on the wikipedia article on Sam Allardyce. There are also other larger articles referencing cult followings on wikipedia, this article should not be disregarded due to it's size or due to some people not having heard of the phrase, as many other people have done.--Tommy legrand 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsourced, dicdef, colloquialism, the works. ~ trialsanderrors 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article purports to be about the (informal) title "Big" that can be seen in list of sportspeople by nickname. It purports to explain what qualifies one for the title. But the references cited do not even tangentially discuss the subject of the article, making no mention whatsoever of "big" as a title let alone discussing the qualifications for, awarding of, and revocation of such a title; and the explanation of why people are accorded the title is clearly the promulgation directly in Wikipedia of a novel hypothesis that is not supported by any secondary sources. Searching, I can find no source material that discusses this subject. It has apparently simply never been the subject of any published material. The entire article is original research. Delete. Uncle G 10:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G.--Chaser T 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/Trialsanderrors. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR Danny Lilithborne 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fertility Retreat

This nomination will become is complex. Please bear with me until all the articles within it are completely listed The articles are now completely listed Or I think they are!). The set of articles is here for the community to form a judgement on. At the end of this some may survive and others fail. We should thus attempt to be specific about those we wish, as individual articles, to keep.

The article "Fertility Retreat" is being used as a starting point to try to untangle what appears to be a publicity campaign WP:AGF notwithstanding, by the article's creator on behalf of Randine Lewis, and one or more other people or organisations. There is a web of redirects and links and other additions that the closing admin will need to address in any articles flagged for deletion by consensus at the end.

My nomination is that they are all advertorial or designed to enhance the notability of the advertorial of other articles. Or, to put it simply: Spam. If there is a better route than AfD for this set of nominations that woudl be useful to know Fiddle Faddle 07:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Articles:

That completes the nomination of main pages. I am assuming that, should this nomination succeed, all related redirects and other spam links will be part of it. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is additional information at Talk:Fertility Retreat, which prompted this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trialsanderrors has pointed out, correctly, that this AfD is not listed properly procedurally. The procedural issues have been moved to trialsanderrors's talk page for you to see. I am about to take the following actions:

  1. remove Fios and Novas from this afd
  2. Mention in this AfD that the same creator also created F and N
  3. Leave Fertility and Randine Lewis in this one
  4. nominate F & N seperately
  5. Create totlally new afd1s in F&N
  6. on the F and the N AfD pages note Randine etc and the other article

When this is complete I will make a further note here. My apologies for any confusion I have caused. From this point on please leave your opinions for ONLY Fertility Retreat and Randine Lewis. These articles were created by Amplifychristian in what currenlty appears to be a PR campaign. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The procedural relisting is now complete. I am about to notify users who have already expressed an opinon here on their talk pages of this fact to ensure corect consensus is reached. Again my apologies for procedural errors. Fiddle Faddle 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fertility retreat, definitely spam; weak delete Randine Lewis without prejudice to laer re-creation of a non-spam article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. (Full disclosure: I was the one who suggested this was a deliberate ad campaign.) As others have mentioned above, Randine Lewis may be a candidate for a future NPOV article, starting from scratch. Based on what searching I've been able to do, fertility retreats seem to be a not yet notable practice. Fan-1967 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note please see comments from the articles' creator and others on Talk:Fertility Retreat I've left a message on their talk page about the AfD process to make sure, as a relatively new editor, they understand the process. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just re-read Fertility Retreat. It says: "Who first coined the phrase "Fertility Retreat"? Dr. Randine Lewis of The Fertile Soul was the first individual to offer fertility retreats. When news outlets started covering Dr. Lewis' fertility-enhancing retreat program and reporting on their effectiveness, other licensed acupuncturists and herbalists starting offering their own fertility retreat programs.", thus it is also a self declared neologism. This adds to the rationale for review for deletion or retention. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why entries that I've made are being labeled as 'spam.' I have knowledge of these companies that I've made entries for and strayed away from any sort of 'advertisial speak' present. In fact, for the other entries (as well as this one) I've made I modeled the format after other similar entries. I think it's unfair to label me as being some sort of "PR person" just because I made several entries in a short amount of time. Sure, label me incorrectly as being this if I were to make entries that seemed like advertisements. But I do believe the entries I've made are neutral in language and provide information for people who are interested in that company and/or person.

In regards to Fertility Retreats, yes, I think it stands as being something notable. I tried to stay away from bias in any regard to Randine Lewis, just because I know who she is and have knowledge that there are other people who engage in these 'fertility retreats.' If someone believes that I'm 'spamming' or having an 'advertisial tone' in my entires (which I've entirely tried to stray away from), then I would appreciate it if you were to edit the page! I've provided a couple of articles that show some credibility into what a "fertility retreat" is and how it could be a notable entry for Wikipedia.

My hope is that users don't just read Fiddle Faddle's comments about me/my entries and automatically assume I'm spamming. If each user could take a little bit of time, look over the entries I've created/edited, and looked for themselves how they contain NO 'advertisial speak' AND no bias and are, in fact, MODELED after other entries in similar categories (my examples being Synplicity, Mentor Graphics, and Synopsys for the EDA category for my entry Novas Software, which is also being targeted for deletion just because one user thought I was trying to advertise) then I would feel confident in the fact that other users would see entries I've created as being neutral and, in fact, informative and similar to other entries in their respective categories and fields. PLEASE take a look at this entry along with the others that I've created and see that I'm not employing in any "PR efforts" or trying to advertise for said companies - I'm just creating neutral entries for companies which are modeled after similar ones. Why I'm being targeted as 'spamming' and such, I don't know.

And to address Fiddle Faddle's latest comment - I do believe he's picking at straws to make sure all of my entries are deleted. I don't know what I did to this user, but it seems like he/she is on some sort of 'mini-mission' to have everything I've done on here deleted. If I engaged in any sort of advertisial tone or spamming, then I could see why he/she has his/her rationale. If you have a problem with anything in any entry I've made, made note of it, edit it, whatever.--Christian B 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm willing to assume that you're not a PR stooge. Still, you seem like a fan, no? The articles for Lewis and fetility retreats seem very positive in tone, mentioning nothing about the skepticism Western medicine has about whether any of this actually works (see page 3 of that Post piece and other news coverage linked from her website). In any case, the community is understandably very suspicious of anything that looks like advertising. It would have been helpful if you had provided links to the press coverage initially so that others could pitch in to get the article as neutral as possible.--Chaser T 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfrost

I cannot even decipher this, yet I presume it is about some unknown band. This is not notable, and aside from that, it is poorly written Michael 07:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clokworx

I suppose this is a band of some type, but I have never heard of this, this violated WP:NPOV, and the writing is not presentable at all, nor is it notable. Michael 07:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rivers

Less-than-notable comedian. 911 (sic) Google hits, zero Lexis-Nexis hits for the last ten years, incl. local. Link spams to various sites, Kim Gordon, Daniel Johnston, etc. gives this one a taste of WP:VANITY. Considered prodding but maybe someone knows him. ~ trialsanderrors 08:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is known in Rochester, which is why he was on the cover of City Magazine, and why a biographical piece appeared in that issue. As Daniel Johnston becomes more popular, so should Del. The music of the two men is incredibly similar. He has only been on Wikipedia for about a year, so "no hits for the last ten years" is misleading. - r.g. 11 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.105.105 (talk • contribs)

The no hits is a reference to a news search on Lexis-Nexis, including local newspapers in New York state and the Northeast. Wikipedia is not there to boost popularity of unknown artists. They need to establish an outside presence first. Daniel Johnston is way more popular than DR. ~ trialsanderrors 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not remove text from nominations or other editors' comments. This is considered vandalism. ~ trialsanderrors 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker4ever

Looks like advertising and doesn't assert notability. Deprod by creator. --ais523 08:21, 11 July 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 both. Patrick Eris has not been discussed much here, but the notability of that subject is heavily intertwined with Sandman's, so I feel that the discussion here is sufficient justification for its deletion. In particular, Nemo Sandman is the only article that links to Patrick Eris. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo Sandman and Patrick Eris

Completely unverifiable articles. No sources provided, no proper indication of notability provided, and the article's author is name Nemo3000, which indicates vanity. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: both articles were prodded. The author removed the tag on the first, so I AFD'd both in anticipation of the same thing occuring on the second page -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hello, I am working on giving you verifiable info... I'm new on Wkikipedia... doing my best and need help.But it's hard to see everything deleted with a click of a mouse. Nemo3000 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also the changing of the artist name from Jean-Manuel Moreau (easily verifiable on Google) to Nemo Sandman is not helping... Oh Gosh, I was even born in Diderot's city, the author of the Encyclopédie...I still don't understand how to show the verifiable infos... For example "Riding the rafale" is a film produced by Teuf Production. How can this info can be verified ? By a link ? Thank you to point me in the right direction. Nemo3000 09:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was enough notable to be broadcasted twice on MTV (50 minutes) on may 1997... :-) I know it was almost ten years ago... screen capture here Nemo3000 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually, it's perharps a good thing to remind you this simple fact: Nemo Sandman (Jean Manuel Moreau) was noticed on Joolz Denby article as film maker in her article since 22nd December 2005 !!!... Perharps you should have asked this editor to check Sandman's notability before to write in this article <<...(Joolz) works on screenplay project "Exilée" and "Secret Angles" with film maker Nemo Sandman...>>  ? Nemo3000 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And....when I'm old and wise. Heavy words that tossed and blew me, like Autumn winds that will blow right through me and someday in the mist of time when they ask you if you knew me Remember that you were a friend of mine !!!! As the final curtain falls before my eyes Oh when I'm Old and wise— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo3000 (talk • contribs)
  • Simple fact: Nemo Sandman (Jean Manuel Moreau) was noticed on Joolz Denby article as film maker in her article since 22nd December 2005 !!!.. Now you can erase him and have a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo3000 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Look, we already know you're heavily invested in keeping this article alive (one of the reasons, come to that, cited in both WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN why you shouldn't write an article about yourself). But quite aside from that being mentioned in another article isn't in of itself proof of notability - I am, in two articles yet, and that doesn't make me notable - such links are found in Wikipedia all the time, and isn't a particular deterrent to the AfD process. RGTraynor 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the links RGTraynor. I deeply appreciate your true neutrality and real accuracy in your comment. It's an helping hand. Most of all it's helping me to get a better understanding on how WP is working. You can do whatever it's needed to be made with this article. As far as I am concern, the feud is over. Nemo3000 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm disappointed that no-one chose to discuss the fact that the article assert that the artist has three or four albums on a label called Bite Records, which according to our article is part of Universal Music Group, which would meet WP:MUSIC.

However, Bite Records was created by the same person behind this article, and I can find no evidence that Bite Records actually exists. I will be nominating Bite Records for deletion as a hoax, and see no reason not to carry out the consensus here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kaay

... and also Savage (Lee Kaay album), Esta Noche, Erotikuss, Venus (album)

Non-notable artist. 37 Google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-11 08:35Z

I can also confirm that I saw Lee Kaay perform as back up for Tori Amos so do not understand why it was ever considered for deletion.

Deletion should be removed as the artiste is not a non notable artiste having toured with Tori Amos and released 5 albums. (cheekychops)

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bots united

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Possibly created in response to removal of weblinks from list of wikis. According to Alexa, Wikipedia is the top site linking in, ranking ~200,000. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parawiki

77 unique ghits, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank in the millions, no traffic data, no News hits, no cited sources, no sign of where reliable secondary sources might be found. Kept no consensus a year ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parawiki. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Presently, the Parawiki has more than 20 users and it contains more than 170 pages (many of which are still stubs). The critical mass for adoption in the parallel programming community is obviously not reached yet, and therefore work continues by the Programming Languages / Methodologies group to enhance the contents of the Parawiki. That quote seals the deal on notability, however noble the effort of creating a Wiki is. Alphachimp talk 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of Pluto

Not-quite-notable band, fails WP:BAND, unknown to allmusic.com. Prod removed by author without comment. Delete --Huon 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)\\[reply]

The article was improved quite a lot since my nomination. Some references would be nice, but it does seem to satisfy WP:BAND. Thus, I change my opinion to keep. --Huon 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, though I will restore the content for transwiki if a) someone who is able to read Gujarati volunteers to do the Transwiki, and b) that person is familiar with Indian copyright law, and can assert that the poem is in the public domain - the poem was obviously published before 1923, but note that WP:PD says "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account".

I don't expect a quick answer to either question, and it's very easy to restore deleted content, so to leave a patently unsuitable, possibly illegal article hanging in limbo indefinitely would be absurd. People who actually do transwikis are rare enough (much rarer than the people who move for them), and I suspect that the number of those who read Gujarati is zero. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Jai Garvi Gujarat - Narmad

Listed on WP:PNT for over two weeks. Discussion from there follows. The language of this article is unknown. --JByrd 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess Gujarati, based on the subject. -Fsotrain09 23:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed. — FireFox 12:57, 13 June '06
Yes. The article is in Gujarati (my mothertongue :)). But I don't think it would be a canditate for wikipedia. First of all, it is a poem. Secondly, it is not a national song of Gujarat. Gujarat is a state of India and would not have a national song. Still, if translation needs to be done, I would be happy to get someone to translate it (I am not that good at it). But IMO this should be a candidate for the Gujarati wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, very notable poems often have articles with interpretations, and the fact that it is an Indian song does not make it less notable; so if it has high significance for Gujarat, then it should be good enough.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But the problem is that I don't think I am competent enough to decide whether this is notable or not. I will try to find out some more information about the song and the poet by tonight (IST = +5.30 GMT) - Aksi_great (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as translated. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duong Trieu Vu

Listed at WP:PNT for over two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. --12.29.175.2 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese. Kusma (討論) 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google tells me he's a singer. Kimchi.sg 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only the last paragraph is relevant to the analysis. The other stuff is mainly about his upbringing, how he is a good boy, a parent's dream, apparently he did the International Baccalaureate (so did I and I'm not a notable academic, heh), then he auditioned successfully for Paris by Night (which is an iconic music-video show which releases 5-6 new 3hr DVDs each year of their assortment of Vietnamese language performers of Vietnamese music/skits/dancing outside of Vietnam, and is very popular - my parents tried to borrow a new release at the library and they started off as #76 in the waiting list and finally got it after 9 months) - however it appears that he won the audition to become a guest artist and has not yet become one the regulars, who typically do three or four items on each recording. Work out if this is good enough for inclusion (I doubt it personally)- if so, I'll translate some day but not now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated the paragraph which is the basis of his claim to notability. Please take a look. Also, I've been doing all these translations, without a dictionary. Should I change my vietnamese userbox to level 2?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indenting) This guy deserves an article, because he seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria 9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." In addition, I guess his songs may have been aired on at least one Vietnam national radio station too? And Blnguyen, that translation looks readable enough for you to promote your VN fluency userbox, IMO. Kimchi.sg 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't a music competition. It's basically a music variety show, which is accompanied by short interviews resembling notable chat-shows. If he has become a regular performer who appears on each DVD show as a regular cast member, then it hasn't been claimed in the article. The songs wouldn't have gotten on National media in Vietnam as Paris by Night is a diaspora show which is hosted by Nguyen Cao Ky Duyen, the daughter of ex South-Vietnam Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was censored in Vietnam. It is very popular outside of Vietnam, so I wouldn't be surprised if the artists got regular airtime on 24hr Vietnamese stations in the United States - mainly in California, esp San Jose, Orange County, as well as Houston. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
OK, It's not stated in the actual article, but he is a regular cast member for at least a year now. I'd lean towards keeping it now, as I looked on the DVD cover of the last one that I was talking about, and this product has distribution offices in USA, AUS, Canada and France. This is also the largest Vietnamese music-show/troupe outside Vietnam ([citation needed]).Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a copyvio of his official site, although if I translated and NPOV-ed it, it wouldn't be anymore.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think direct translation is enough to avoid copyright. If it is a direct copyover, it would need a lot of work to be keepable under copyright laws. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:30, 11 July 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Keep as redirect, original proposal moot. Smerdis of Tlön 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comuna sprancenata

Listed on WP:PNT for over two weeks, transferring here. Discussion from that page follows. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC) The language of this article is unknown. --Adolphus79 12:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian, short article about small municipality. I'd rather let someone with better knowledge of the language translate, though. Aquilina 12:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have translated the article in English, so we can keep it. I think you should now remove the AFD tag. The article was already present (with the same content) in the Romanian Wikipedia. Razvan Socol 11:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Redirected per discussion; Serbian contents preserved at Talk:Banatsko Veliko Selo. Smerdis of Tlön 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banatsko veliko selo

Listed on WP:PNT for over two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian I think. — FireFox 12:57, 13 June '06
It's Serbian, in fact. GregorB 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alomari

Listed on WP:PNT for over two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. --Lsjzl 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic, far as I can see. -Fsotrain09 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate says that it's a clan with ~100,000 members: "Family age rooted in all parts of the Arab homeland from Iraq and the Gulf eastward to the Arab Maghreb west and linked ratios family to the successor Umar ibn Al-Khattab the second Khalifs adults and the first Fathi House sacred and proliferate families that bears the name of age or have endured another name in Jordan, Syria and Palestine" (ref). We have Japanese clans, so I suppose Arab ones are notable too. --Kunzite 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lbbzman 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Wrestling Superstars

Duplicate of Wrestling Superstars Burgwerworldz 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E Jordon (Refrigeration) Ltd

Spam for a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chainki

Non-notable website. Google hits for "Chainki": 689. No Alexa traffic rank. Fails: WP:WEB. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy G1 by DaGizza. Tevildo 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Skills

nn market survey that doesn't really make any sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esemono (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was delete. Sango123 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoState

Article about small and unimportant group of disgruntled San Jose State students and alumni; mostly created to prevent San Jose State University and California State University article from being inundated with pro-CSU San Jose information. Not at all notable. NeoChaosX 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is just a POV page for an advocacy group, and it does not belong in an encyclopedia. I support everyone's right to seek a forum for their message, but this is not the place for it. Good luck to GoState but please delete this article and their associated comments/messages in the SJSU and California State University articles. Streltzer 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Wiki

A wiki with under a dozen mainspace articles, devoted to a flash animator whose article has eben deleted numerous times and endorsed by DRV numerous times, including at Robert Benfer, Robert "Knox" Benfer, Robert Benfer (animator), Knox (animator), Knox (flash artist), Klay World. Full marks to his fans for inventiveness in thinking of new ways to get him onto Wikipedia, but nought out of ten for WP:WEB on this particular wiki. Article created by Salty! (talk · contribs), who happens to be the creator of the wiki. Oh, and there's a self-referential link in the text. Just zis Guy you know? 10:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fios, Inc.

fails WP:SPAM. Pure advertorial. This deletion is related to the deletion nomination for Fertility retreat and for Novas Software, Inc. because it was created by the same editor, who appears to be conducting a wikipublicity campaign for these three organisations / people. The AfD was originally improperly listed as a bundled listing along with Fertility retreat. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy deleted by DaGizza. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan.....

Original research/essay Travelbird 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novas Software, Inc.

fails WP:SPAM. Pure advertorial. This deletion is related to the deletion nomination for Fertility retreat and for Fios, Inc. because it was created by the same editor, who appears to be conducting a wikipublicity campaign for these three organisations / people. The AfD was originally improperly listed as a bundled listing along with Fertility retreat. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per admin; CSD A7.--Andeh 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark silverman

non-notable actor. Note there are several other Mark Silverman on imdb, none of which seem to be identical with this one Travelbird 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Beabout

not sufficiently notable, only relevant hits are talk- and personal pages Travelbird 10:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Artists

Unusable list, no criteria to slect one persone from another abakharev 10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caveman Robot

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


nn comic, about 800 or so Googles, one NY Times review of the author's off-off-off Broadway musical which referred to it as "a very loud and long mess." Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 11:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you type "Caveman Robot" as two words you will see over 25 pages in google!

Keep~ I get asked question about Caveman Robot all the time, and thought that 11 some odd years of production of numberous comics, dolls, and a full length play, plus reviews, and write up made something noteworthy. Yes the guy from the NY times did not like the musical, but it was still written up in the New York Times with a Photo! I am happy to reformat the page to make fit better in the wikipedia format, but I think deletion is unfair. How about helpping to make it a better entry instead of deleting?- Jason

Keep~ It's worth mentioning that the scathing Times review actually did more to benefit the production with extra publicity (and seriously, New Yorkers take Times reviews with a grain of salt. Look at the Bruni Digest). Plus, it was accompanied by a huge color photo, while a favorable review of another production on the same page warranted only a tiny B&W picture.

I value Wikipedia for its range of coverage from the mundane to the localized eclectic. It would be very disappointing to see the Caveman Robot entry suddenly disappear.

Comment User's only contribution to wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~ I just read Wikipedia's deletion policy, inscrutibly worded as it was, and don't feel that anything in this entry is in violation of its edicts. The moves to delete strike me as tastemaking, and no one wants to go down that garden path. If anything, a pan in the New York Times is actually an arguement to KEEP the page up, as a mention in the New York Times found the subject worthy on an article in their publication in the first place. The hilarious supposition instead is that, if the Times LIKED the play, this debate wouldn't exist. Please.

Comment User's only contribution to wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- I created that History page, to save the information that was on this Wikipedia page, before it was a dierct link here, but since you Olympians have cast your thumbs down I saved the info. Please go ahead and Delete this page, save more room for endless pages about porn stars and the guy that played the Gorn on Star Trek, and just for the record these were all real people on here writting what they acutally thought- Jason

Can you prove you created the history page? I find it unlikely that the official site of this has its information copied from a wikipedia article! Secondly, please sign your comments with ~~~~. You must understand that I am not pointing out other users to be vindictive, it is more to do with the fact that they all seem to have little or no edits apart from this page, format in a similar way and add little relavent informationg to this discussion (it is not a vote). michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 07:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The history page I wrote, which I later used as the bases for the Wikipedia entry came from the history of Caveman Robot Project which was written when Shoshanna Weinberger and I applied for the trademark in 2002. Since then I have been updating the Caveman Robot entry here on Wikipedia for the last 6 months trying to get it into the righ format. Once I saw that you guys wanted to delete it, I could not very well have a direct link on the caveman robot home page going to a wiki page with all these mean sprited comments. Here is what gets me, Caveman Robot projects have been mentioned/reviewed in The New York Times (twice, once with a giant photo) , Time Out New York (with a photo), the New City paper in Chicago, the Jack Kirby Collector, Oddball comics webpage (voted the best oddball comic of 2004), Factsheet Five, NyTheater.com (a review and a podcast interview), Off-Off Broadway.com, Theatermania.com, Comicbook reasources, and on dozens of blogs. I did ask people to come onto this page a voice their thoughts, but that was I, I did not tell people what to say. I read Wikipedia all the time and have actually added a few edits here and there, but there a many people out there that don't understand how to use your formating and this has keep them away from making entries. It is not just a series of comics (The 2 most recent ones having been national distrubuted), but is was a real Off-Off Broadway musical that had a six week run, and a live performace at the Knitting Factory, Deitch Projects, Participant Inc. in New York, and Quimby's in Chicago. On top of all this a Caveman Robot sculpture has been on display at Quimby's for Ten years and is considered a mascot of the store. I think many of your editors are looking at this entry as a comic or a musical, it is not that it is a vast art project that has been created by dozens of artist,performers, musican, and fans. So you take this off if it means do much to you, really I don't understand you people.- Jason

Comment: Actually, I did read the link before you deleted it and you did say "come save it from deletion."  RasputinAXP  c 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did post the appeal, at the suggestion of a friend, Caveman Robot has a lot of fans and I figured they would want to voice their thoughts, when I realized that people might see it as bad form I deleted it, Also I think I have made my case in the above list of actual real press and attention, if you people can't see that, then go ahead and get this over with. But it is only a matter of time before Caveman Robot is back on here, becasue it is a real thing---- Jason

So the fact that it was mentioned/reviewed in The New York Times (twice, once with a giant photo) makes it a "non-notable underground musical"?- Jason.

Keep - "Sockpuppet," while amusing, is wildly inaccurate in this case. If I contributed to every forum I browsed on a daily basis, I'd have no life. Any entries I've considered adding to seem to have been already covered. That said, if anyone wants to breathe new life into the "musical" genre, it's beneficial to leave this entry, since interest in the traditional Broadway musical is currently very low among those of my generation. I can disclose I've been a resident of this neighborhood for 10 years, and have seen many bands, artists, shows from this immediate area go on to the mainstream. I can also say I've seen some of his work on display at local galleries, and it is on par with Steve Keene, (who lives down the street from me). Call me a trendwatcher, but it's the truth. I'd imagine an orginization such as Wikipedia would also want to stay on top of the trends. It may not be the Archdiocese of Cheyenne or a tiny Canadian aiport, but don't dismiss the relevance of underground pop culture.

KEEP I've picked up the Caveman Robot comic books at the last couple years at the San Diego comic con, and look forward to doing so this year. They are a lot better than a lot of the crap that is on comic store shelves now. I check out the Caveman Robot blog pretty frequently, and was shocked to see news of the possible deletion of the entry. Sure, a lot of people may have never heard of the character, but is that any reason to kill the entry. Isn't Wikipedia about spreading knowledge? Censoring information and excluding content based on taste works against this endeavor. Caveman Robot exists. Keep the entry, just edit it a little to meet Wikipedia style standards a bit better. - U.S. Ape

Note: Meatpuppetry above is a result of public appeal.  RasputinAXP  c 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some external links to Caveman Robot projects reviews and write ups- http://froogle.google.com/froogle?client=saf ari&rls=en&q=CAveman%20Robot&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/oddball/index.cgi?date=2004-12-31

http://shabot6000.com/blog/2006/05/oolar.html

http://www.timessquare.com/bway/newreviews/cavemanrobot/

http://fossen.blogspot.com/2005/12/thank-you-caveman-robot.html

http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/3905.html

Note: I did indeed come here via a friend, because I had to see the childish behavior for myself. Evidently the "editors" haven't fully recovered from their traumatizing high school years. The above "discourse" includes a lot of unnecessary snarkiness on behalf of the "editors," and blatantly contradicts #4 under "Key Policies." - Jane Minty

  • Delete and echo Coredesat's statement. The article is long, but.. it doesn't assert or prove notability. Sorry, but it has to be on more people's radar screens than what the article mentions. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Caveman Robot is a true DIY phenomenon, a genuine example of the homegrown culture that can emerge from the “village media” model of locally rooted yet nationally significant creativity that the web has made possible. Wikipedia itself is a fine forum for “online communities” in the knowledge-seeking, non-cynical sense of the term, so a catchy yet essentially uncommercial enterprise like Caveman Robot is essential material for your archives. For any non-corporate, indie effort to crack the cultural radar of official history records like the Times, favorably or otherwise, is a sign of its importance. And though “Caveman Robot” may call up many google hits, the quality and consolidation of information Wikipedia offers is what makes the online experience meaningful and useful to begin with, amidst the same cultural din that Caveman Robot has had the quality and vision to rise above.172.128.41.151 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User's only contribution to wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 07:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Caveman Robot has been supplying comedic and philosophical substance to art galleries in NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago. It has evolved from an individual artist's vision to that of a collection of artists who express their own views and styles through the character in different mediums ranging from painting and sculpture, comic books, graphic novels, music, costume and theatre! To me the deletion of an entire art community's collective dream is horrific, and I cannot understand what would motivate WikiPedia to remove it. If this happens, it will cause me to seriously reconsider the esteem with which I hold WikiPedia in conversations with others, my blogs and in my own personal use.

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 12:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Ralls

NN bio Clappingsimon talk 11:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri B. Kolesnik

Not notable academics abakharev 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Safety (book)

Selfg-published book (president of the publisher is the author), article written by the author. Vanispamcruftisemeent. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Book is notable and important to researchers. Book available at Amazon.com, and has received positive reviews by independent researchers and medical associations. [30] Dionyseus 12:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the references to reviews seem to be verifiable, although since these journals are all copyrighted, the full texts are not available. (You could, however, probably find most of them in a sizable public or university library using their system.) JAMA article, BMJ article, and the IMAJ article is cited on many sites selling the book by "Elihu D Richter MD, MPH Hebrew University", including Amazon. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merges can be performed without needing to go through AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective recruitment

Idiosyncratic definition of a well enough documented scientific term, largely based on a self-published book written by the author of this article, and apaprently part of a selt promotion campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term was first introduced in the peer-reviewed paper by L. Evans "Human behavior feedback and traffic safety." Human Factors 27: 555-576; 1985. This is a much-cited paper in the professional traffic safety literature. The effect is discussed in the 1991 book by Evans "Traffic Safety and the Driver". Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991. (ISBN 0442001630) and more briefly in the same author's 2004 book "Traffic Safety (ISBN 0975487108). More briefly because the whole point about science is that more data and understanding settles once-controversial issues. Nearly all of the many citations are from the paper-only era not available for internet searching.

The main article on "Traffic Safety" has three suggestions for further reading. One of the three "Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety" is nothing more than a political tract. The book is owned by 11 US libraries listed in Library World Cat (http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/open/default.htm), compared to 158 and 133 for the two Evans books mentioned above. It has just one Appendix -- a long one denouncing Evans as a spokesman for the safety establishment. Although I deny the charge -- surely an encyclopedia is supposed to convey the current state of main-stream knowledge.

I suggest that this item provides some modest counterbalance to the host of unfounded claims and explanations claimed effects (rejected by the traffic safety profession). Deleting this and everything now relating to traffic safety and starting again might make more sense than deleting just this one item.

My own articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, American Scientist and the like provide a reasonable summary of what science has taught us about the subject. What is now in Wikopedia is the stuff of First Amendment Rights (which I support vigorously), but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Leonard Evans Levanszzzz 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge into Traffic Safety (book). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Safety and the Driver (book)

Article written by the book's author, written in advertorial terms. No evidence of publication reach and "largely eclipsed" by a later self-published work. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stelios kalogerakis

Looks like a vanity page, its subject being the user who made the article Briancollins 12:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amitoune

NN online game; forum has only 113 users; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 12:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even worse considering that it was apparently founded in 2000 and thus has that number of players after six years! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -PresN 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am neutral on whether or not this article should be deleted. But, I think I object to criteria on which the game's popularity/relevance is being based. A forum cannot reveal that much about the game's historical popularity. It is a MUD; most of its users will exist on the MUD itself, not on the forum. I visited the forum of another MUD on Wikipedia having just 75 members, but the MUD itself was famous. Moreover, how do you propose to judge the MUD's historical popularity based on its current popularity? I doubt many people play the Atari 2600 now, but Wikipedia has quite a few articles based on it and its games. Those games qualify based on the fact that they were popular at one point in their history. Those articles cannot be judged on the current popularity of their subjects, so upon which factors do decide that it is alright to base the judgement of this article on the game's current popularity? - wyrlum 18:39, 13 July 2006
Comment: The above user is the page creator. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Hmm... why? Are there rules against the page creator commenting on the deletion page of his own article? - wyrlum 19:36, 13 July 2006
Comment no, there aren't. Percy Snoodle 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The forum was the best method available to assess the number of players If you could prove that you have had over 1000 distinct players at any point in your game's history, or otherwise satisfy the criteria at WP:WEB, I'd happily change my vote. However, my guess is that your maximum players+admins = 113. Percy Snoodle 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedily kept as a bad-faith nomination.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tots TV

AfD submitted by Tom the ToT with comment "Tots tv must die!". This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination by Tom the ToT, who in one of his diffs [31] admits to being the ToTs TV vandal, who has been plagueing the ToTs TV page for many months. Account has now been blocked as a vandal account. - TexasAndroid 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of Tomorrow

Inactive band whose only claims to notability are that they found a bush fire and lead worship at a large church congregation. Was both prodded and {{db-band}}'ed but I consider the talk page comment, which came after both tags were added, to be contesting both. Delete. Kimchi.sg 12:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have been tempted to speedy this if you hadn't said the db was already removed. If getting your picture taken with a fire truck makes you notable, then we'll have articles for every preschooler who's ever been on a class trip. The wildfire should have gotten this article. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete NN band. Most Ghits were unrelated to this band. Creator of article cannot delete speedy deletion notice. Dionyseus 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should clarify - the article's creator did not remove either prod or CSD tag from the article itself. He made a comment against deletion on the talk page and hence I felt this article should not be speedy deleted. The reason I brought this to AfD was for people to evaluate the claims made. It does assert notability to me. Kimchi.sg 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Casimire Catherine, Comtesse de Saulx

NN bio. Looks impressive on the surface, but fails Google test and perhaps NPOV historical importance. (I have concerns with some of the other obscure bios this editor is adding, but not really sure why. Quite odd. Anyway, let's see how this one fares in AFD) Clappingsimon talk 12:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete per admin; CSD A7.--Andeh 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larnax (band)

Bullshit, band not notable, German page deleted since months CdaMVvWgS 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: consensus that this article should not exist on its own, and apparently information from here has been merged into Lithuanian Metrica, so this article has been redirected there to preserve the edit history per GFDL. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia

  1. Article name Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia is not used widely [34] and [35] . Signs of original research and due to this almost impossible to reader find this article.
  2. Word Myetrika is distorted name to English wiki, an academic English translation is Metrica. Word myetrika is not used widely [36] too.
  3. Article lacks info on the main issue.
  4. Accidentally Lithuanian Metrica duplicates the Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. Lithuanian Metrica is completed article. Compare spread of articles in internet: Lithuanian Metrica and Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia.
  5. Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia have none usable info which could be used by merging these two articles, so merge is not a solution IMO.
  6. etc. M.K. 13:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep (though the expansion of several issues and subsequent merge may be needed)
  1. Request for deletion is too abrupt, no mention was made before of the existing article. The claims made by Lithuanian users may express the anti-Belarusian POV on history of GDL.
Comment. There are nothing ati-Byelorussian. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)p.s and made only assuming good faith[reply]
It's nothing personal or anti-. Just there's no need ot have two separate articles on the same issue.--Lokyz 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The disputed stub article represents the verbatim translation of the lead from the academic publication (encyclopedia of literature) and contains the vital facts on the language(s) of the documents (somehow missing from the current edition of the Lithuanian Metrica). There is none original research here!
Comment. About language – read a bit closer the article. And familiarize your self with English sources. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Old Belarusian' in main article Lithuanian Metrica it is mentioned, that it was written in Ruthenian. What's so vital in in mentioning Old Belarusian? IMO it cerates unnecessary mess, because by that formulation it is that nowadays Ukrainian language is also descendant of Old Belarussian. Or would you agree to call that language Old Ukrainian?--Lokyz 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Both Metrica and Myetrika are the renderings of the Polish word "metryka" (for archive) and as such none is more canonical than the other.
Comment. Word Metrica used most common. Even the revived books which translated to English used word Metrica not metryka' and definitely not Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Proofs "ad Google" don't seem good enough here. Provide academic sources, please. ---Yury Tarasievich 06:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google is not perfect tool, but it is providing the direction which is very clear in this case. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Claims for Old Belarusian are widely known (at least between Belarusian historians), it's not original research. As for name: in Belarusian it's Метрыка Вялікага Княства Літоўскага (this is incomplete but waht I definitely remember :-), so article name is just translataion of Belarusian name. Nothing incorrect there too. --EugeneZelenko 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the duty to make a comment here too. I hope you don’t mine :) Sorry who accused that the Old Belarusian is OR of wikipedian editor? I pointed only formulation Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. IMO user:Lokyz made a note (and right one) that Old Belarusian can’t be used as summarized term (especially when talking about chancellery issues) . Now about translation – why reinvent machine when it already invented. Word Metrica is “picked up” by professional historians which publications are used in Poland, Russia, Lithuania etc. and used in the international scale project and have biggest majority in English internet sources (BTW, translation of Myetrika … made by whom?).M.K. 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Lithuanian Metrica - not original, but the conditional name of a complex of documents. However this name is standard. "Ruthenian language" - not language, and the conditional general name of slavic languages in territory Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ruthenian = Old Belarussian + Old Ukrainian. Lithuanian Metrica it is written basically Old Belarussian language, later Polish language. Only some documents are written Old Ukrainian language, but there are some volumes completely written Old Ukrainian language (so-called Volynian Metrica). --MaximLitvin 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will make a comment here too :), because user:Yury Tarasievich lost his temper and accused everybody of POV (even began to shouting on “bad” Lithuanian historians) only proving lack of his skills. But get back to main issue.
Hey, I didn't do that! Hearty laugh, I had. Lost my temper, didn't. :) ---Yury Tarasievich 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I want to ask you – do you think name Lithuanian Metrica is bad for article or maybe you have other solutions?
I see you touched Volynian (Luck), but I feel duty to expand and a bit and adjust your comments. It is linguistically proven (Ch. Stang; Z.Zinkevičius; etc.) that Ruthenian lang. used in chancellery of Grand Duchy of Lithuania was dominated by Volynian until mid XVI century ( some linguist say that Volynian dominated until end of XVIc.). This conclusion was drown after analysis of Ruthenian documents issued by Grand Duchy of Lithuania chancellery. Second decisive moment is that when central dialect of present-day Belarus territory (roughly) was used – chancellery and spoken languages remain with notable differences; so it should be also clear division between chancellery and spoken languages – so it is another issue why terms with “old” can’t be applied without tremendous exceptions when talking about chancellery issues. M.K. 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. when talking about languages of metrica don’t exclude Latin (German as minor).[reply]
Moved the section on "" to Talk:Belarusian_language. Let's have a talk there. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not move comments elsewhere leaving here nothing, you can copy comm. and paste in different place, but don’t leave here nothing cuz it is important to this case here. Regarding Belarusian lang. article – it is a separate issue which should be taken with care cuz it have some major systematic mistakes. I will make comments after few days (or weeks), I have a bit intense timetable so I can’t work on several cases at once (his why I did not reply to your note on my talk) M.K. 10:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Lithuanian Metrica - the standard conditional name (already it is above written by me). This name is necessary for using in Wikipedia.
2. "… until mid XVI century … - … until end of XVI century." - a mistake. Correctly - "until mid XV century - until end of XV century". It speaks that Vitaut's Office was completed with the personnel on Volhynia in 1380-s years, and has then moved together with it to Vilnia. The Volynsk language influence was limited to the period of a life of the Volynsk personnel.
Actually there is no mistake at all ! I check and double check these conclusions and there are confirmed in other sources (“Definition problem of Slavic chancellery language in Grand Duchy of Lithuania”; “Inaccuracies of History approach” {my translations}; etc. etc. etc.). And all have point of XVI century as key moment. And analysis was not only Vytautas chancellery but much broader.
Second moment – not chandlery personnel lifetime, but lifetime of ruler, monitoring shifts of dialect. M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Old Belarussian and Old Ukrainian - not colloquial languages, but literary languages. Spoken languages were not used in office-work MDL. However, spoken languages influenced on literary - it distinctions between Old Belarussian and Old Ukrainian. Old Belarussian speak and Old Ukrainian were generated on the basis of Ruthenian language under influence of local dialects. Therefore in clause instead of "Latin, Ruthenian, Polish and German languages" it is necessary to write "Old Belarussian, Polish, Old Ukrainian, Latin and German languages".
Here you confusing something, but not going to details - contemporary and scientific term Ruthenian taking into account all these “Old” with most care, so I convinced that chancellery issues should have Ruthenian definition.M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. At Ch. Stang and Zinkevičius have very different opinions concerning an accessory of language of office-work MDL. Unfortunately, I do not have not enough knowledge of English language that it is detailed about it to tell. --MaximLitvin 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. Latin and German language there is no subject of our discussion.[reply]
Actually Ch. Stang and Zinkevičius provided landmark scholar works which are recognized as facts and there are not POV.
Zinkevičius also spent huge time analyzing Slavic language and problems regarding of these languages, etc. M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have already added all the useful information of this article to Lithuanian Metrica. The title of this article is not even English (it should be "of the Grand Duchy"), and the transcription of "Метрыка" does not obey Wikipedia standards for transcription of Belarusian (it should be "Mietryka" or "Metryka"). Yes, the article Lithuanian Metrica looks a bit overly Lithuanian, but then, the Lithuanians have really done a lot for these texts. Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, feel free to add your additional information. (By the way, why don't you who speak the languages expand the Lithuanian stub or write articles in Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian?) --Daniel Bunčić 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English academic sources

  • History of Lithuanian Metrica (summary by O.Litskevich) --MaximLitvin 08:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lithuanian Institute of History. News of Lithuanian Metrica. Vol. 1-7.Vilnius, 1996-2003.
  • Zigmantas Kiaupa. The Lithuanian Metrica and the Lithuanian Nobility at the End of the Eighteenth Century, in Lithuanian Historical Studies. Vilnius, 1996.
  • Publications of the Lithuanian Metricaand [37] This is publications of the international project which goal to publish Lithuanian Metrica, I believe you can`t challenge leading historians who working on this project. M.K. 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Cambridge Medieval History (formulation Lithuanian Metrica)
  • By S. C. Rowell Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345 (formulation Lithuanian Metrica)
  • Ptaszycki, Stanislaw. The Lithuanian Metrica in Moscow and Warsaw: Reconstructing the Archives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
  • Metriciana: Research and Materials of the Metrica of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 2004

Extensive comments

  • <sigh> Dear (Lithuanian) collegues. Some time ago, I'd noticed a dangling link to Metryka in Belarusian language and reasoned that there's no article if the link remained empty for so long. So I'd made a stub with the info most pertinent to the Belarusian language. I hadn't receive any notification from anybody that there is already a similar article. Maintainers stamped the article with categories etc. Then, out of the blue, this request for deletion happens. Frankly, I don't quite understand your problem.
I did stamp it with categories because you forgot to do it (it's for a more convenient way to find it). After that it was dicovered and proved, that it is a redundant dublicate.--Lokyz 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article on Lithuanian Metrica you are pointing me to, is, in all truth, just another stub. Decorated with secondary issues and portrait, I'll give you that. About 80% of the volume is dedicated to the geographical moving of the books. However, the article somehow manages not to mention the important (and confirmed) fact of the prevailing languages of the issued documents, the several previous publications influencing the contemporary historiography etc. The fact that "L.M." isn't even a name, but a conventional denotation, isn't mentioned.
Oh please! With your “criticism” - “About 80% of the volume is dedicated to the geographical moving of the books” just shows that you do not ready any articles about Metrica history, don’t you? Actually the scholars who wrote publications sometimes even divide Metrica history by it`s geographical location. You also making the mistake - fact of the prevailing languages of the issued documents - don’t you ever mixup archive of Metrica documents and issued documents as such. It is quite different things.
Metrica – is not a controversial name (even the Byelorussian scholars who worked (now not working due to lack of resources (finance and material) AFAIK) on international project “Lithuanian Metrica” agreed on this name), the true distortion and fantasy is name Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (if you tried to imitated the contemporary name – you badly failed)M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my question - I'll repeat it for third time - was Old Belarusian proto-Ukrainian language? Don't you think, that statement about "Old Belarusian" language in lands of Podole or Halicz is errr... a little bit overexagerated? Another one question: please, tell me when term Belarus first emerged?--Lokyz 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your question and your attempts at ridiculing the concept shows your total unfamiliarity with the subject, esp. when repeated for third time. For a (incomplete yet) basic data, read Belarusian language and East Slavonic languages. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you had a bit more patience discussion could be a bit better. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to avoid unpleasant questions so I'll repeat them once more: please, tell me when term Belarus first emerged? --Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how is your repeated question related to my statement on relevant matter of the supposedly good article Lithuanina Metrica being shoddily done? What are you talking about at all here?? I'm saying those article misses important and confirmed true data. Your relevant answer, please. Or no answer please. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I know well there are places where Lithuaninan historians don't dare to go. That's not other peoples problem however. And I completely resend the claims of incorrectness of the use of the "Old Belarusian" denotation. The concept had been proved scientifically 100+ years ago in the seminal work of Karskiy. And nobody is "obliged" to use the archaic names of the languages. Again, I know quite well about discomfort such revelations cause in average Lithuanian reader, but is that everybody's problem?
Ruthenian – is not an archaic term, yes it is has contemporary base plus it is an scientific term which was used and still it using by linguist and less accusing notes would benefit to discussion.M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, isn't the place where Lithuanian historians do not dear to enter "The Old Belarussian state Litva", a sweet dream of Ermalovich? I do repeat my question for another time: who is Karskyi, and why do you not give any reference to him?--Lokyz 07:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the place they don't dare enter (one of them) is the fact that Belarusian nation did not spring from the ground overnight in 1918. The attitude of the Lithuanian historians on these matters was a running joke in Soviet times. I guess now it's not too different, as you guys both express the ol' familiar POV on "Belarusians not really existing till very very very recent time". ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how interesting you calcified my too. Everybody her is bad and anti-, but you are the “only one” knows the “truth”. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me at least one Lithuanian publication where it is said, that Belorusian nation sprung in 1918. AFAIK, term Belarus is known form XVIII th century. If you know ir from older times - wp:cite document. Your assumpions about POV'ness of "Lithuanian historians" needs proof, because what you ar saying now it is rather conspiracy theory.--Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you just confirmed your total unfamiliarity with the linguistical matters you dispense with so lightly. "Who is Karskiy"? This is ridiculous. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very carefully read user:Lokyz answer, valuate all his/her words. Because reading your comments its looks like you did not even understand that he/she wrote. Second thing your bad behaviour making this discussion hard and if you proceed with in this matter the discussion with you could easily be over. And do you know that is Žuvelbirdevyčius is? M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting rude. Insults won't prove you're right. Ridiculous is your refusal to wp:cite him. Or you dont't have any reference?--Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for "archaic" names - it is not archaic name, it is scientific term, and yes - it is everybody's problem: there were loads of disscussions on that issue, you might find them in different places on Wikipedia.
"Loads of discussions" on WP, which I'm supposed to find myself, yes? won't make one grain of scientific data. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This why user:Lokyz asked you to cite your sources. I am asking the question – do you wrote any scientific article (not wiki article of course!) M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Google isn't a source on history nor a source on "direction of research".
The research is already done by professionals and we have their publications. Google is the tool of search. This means that with help of google we can see the spread of term in internet, books and this means that we have the greater chances that average user would be familiar with one or another term/word so in this order they could faster found this article in wiki. As I said google is not prefect tool also. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, as far as I understand the WP guidelines, this here article stays, most possibly as a redir source, and the article on LM goes to be expanded with the pertinent information. Cheers. ---Yury Tarasievich 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will not stay that way, because it is dublicate. Probably it should be merged - but i do doubt, that anyone would accept Old Belarusian language because it is NPOV'ed.--Lokyz 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't yet know how to do it, procedurally, but I'm going to request the renaming of the Lithuanian Metrica as a misleading and informal. Any kind of word metrika in the main name (my version included) is misleading, actually. Metrika or whatever isn't even a word, it is just a very local convention only historian would recognise. The appropriate name would be smth. like Archive of the G.D.L.R.S. with various metrika* entries serving as a redirs into it. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha this is new development. Now lets remind to ourselves that user:Yury Tarasievich said a bit earlier - represents the verbatim translation of the lead from the academic publication (encyclopedia of literature)- and now - Any kind of word metrika in the main name (my version included) is misleading -. So we have several possibilities – user:Yury Tarasievich lied to as then he said that he used academic sources or deliberately ignored the facts or deliberately chosen to mislead reader. And this is one more argument why article Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia should be deleted. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, M.K., credit me with some intelligence and knowledge of English. The text of the disputed stub is verbatim translation of the lead etc. But any rendering of "metrika" in name is, in fact, misleading for English reader, as it represents un-scientific, although conventional among specialists, name, which means nothing for non-historian and is not guessed easily from Polish or Cyrillic rendering. Just see how I missed when searching WP before creating the stub.
BTW, googling on Metrica without wikipedia yields at least 5 pages of Lithuanian-originating sources with 2 or 3 non-Lithuanian authors. So much for the established name. And I've seen the Lithuanian name is "metrika". Why the difference then?
Let's finish this pointless and irrelevant discussion. See section "Further talk". ---Yury Tarasievich 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yury ! You perfectly know that I can’t credit you intelligence, wisdom - these are goals of lifetime. I suggested you only to take more care that other editors are saying and asking; I also suggested to take a look in English sources how they formulating definitions. And now I also suggest you to relax a bit :)
About Metrica – are you sure that it is “un-scientific”? About “only historians would recognize” I asked for few people to provide history schoolbooks to me and you know these books talk about Metrica (of course in appropriate tongue).
About number of google sources in first page I counted “a bit” more then 2-3 sources of non-Lithuanian authors, while Myetrika none at all. Also you can see some of them of in English academic (academic +-) sources page. Why not “Metrika” there is several key points why is “Metrica” picked up one of them - see published metrica books of English part….M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can't credit me with some intelligence but you can assume me lying. Okay. :)
So, when I tell you that googling without the word wikipedia yields 5 pages of Lithuanian-originating sources with 2 or 3 English or German, you may just dismiss that. :)
Like I've said before, the creation of Myetryka* was not the best move on my part and was conditioned only by not finding anything under the L. metryka or L. metrika. Creating the Archive* (understandably, now it would be created as a redir) would be much better for the common reader.
I know what I've seen, however (and I've saved all of the non-Lithuanian refs -- precisely for such occasion).
Yes, the decision on Metrica with native Metrika still seems strange to me. After all, this isn't translation (Archive is). Also, I don't know what the "appropriate tongue" would mean in such context.
The concept of "L.M." naming itself being un-scientifical isn't mine, it's moved by the researcher Halyenchanka in his ~5000 words encyclopedic article on L.M.
I've added the entry on the naming of the Old Belarusian preferred by Lithuanian researches. Let's have some names and refs there. ---Yury Tarasievich 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good luck in your very original research. Lithuanian Metrica is a common scientific term. If you want to discuss it - write scientific monography and then wp:cite.--Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further talk

I think all the relevant issues had been cleared by now. With kind help of Lokyz and M.K. the location of the existing article is now known, with your kind help, its quality is now known. The work may continue. The (Metrika of*)-s will serve as redir holders after the pertinent info would be merged into the previously existing article. All other threads of discussion should go into respective talk pages. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should relax and breathe freely - procedural things have just begun, andalso Wikipedia is not your playground. Let me remind you wp:cite. --Lokyz 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the sweet smell of victory. :) But this is very very marginal issue, after all. Re-read -- did I want to keep this at all cost? Nope. Why should I, in such an obvious situation? My "keep until..." was moved primarily to make the point of un-acceptability of requests for deletion made in such tone, as made by M.K. and you. However, you, obviously, still do not see any problem there. Okay. We all know what's really going on here. Big news. The "WP not playground" works all ways. And thanks for the concern for my health. :) ---Yury Tarasievich 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ann

NN porn actress. Fails WP:PORN BIO Dismas|(talk) 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I must admit the article's line "She is also planning a anal film in the near future." made me laugh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she has been in 62 videos according to Adult Film Database.com and has also appeared in magazines like Score, High Society, Penthouse, Playboy and Hustler. -- Kjkolb 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:PORN BIO suggests that notability requires 100 movies; 90 may still be enough, but 62 isn't. Similarly, appearance in Playboy other than as a Playmate or Penthouse other than as a Pet doesn't make it. Tevildo 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that's a reasonable opinion. However, I would like to point out that WP:PORN BIO is only a proposed guideline. Also, I think that it is unreasonably strict compared to the treatment that non-adult actors get on AfD. An actor with only a couple of credits and an IMDb page has an excellent chance of being kept, as long as it's not for a public access show or a film that nobody has seen. -- Kjkolb 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see your point. However, the question is, when it comes down to it, "Why should she have an article when all the other porn actresses who fail WP:PORN BIO don't?". If you (or anyone else) can answer that question, with appropriate verifiable citations, then the article can stay. Until then, it should go. Tevildo 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she's not notable per WP:PORN BIO, which is proposed, then she's even less notable per WP:BIO, which is not. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katayoun Amini

In wikify bin since March 2006, this person gets one hit on Google: IMDB. Is this notable enough? KarenAnn 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainslug

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. No label, no albums, no tour. Middenface 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88SLIDE: The Daily One Minute Trivia Challenge

Advertising and non-notable per WP:WEB -Bogsat 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • With 854'000 Google hits, I wouldn't exactly call this non-notable. Google hits can be artifically inflated, but not that high. I vote weak keep but move to 88Slide and cleanup. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; are you sure about that Google total? I got over 400,000 hits, but only 92 unique hits, which is damned soft [39]. Going through those hits, I'm seeing a lot of blogs and redirects. Ravenswing 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to Keep, as it provides useful info for people, such as the full names of those involved with the project, but I do believe it should be moved to "88SLIDE", as Che said above. Eric 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For things like this, I like to ask myself, "Will anyone care in a year?" In this case, I like to answer myself, "No." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 July 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayNOW!

I came upon this article when reverting vandalism on it and later being asked to protect it due to lame edit warring. However, the whole site seems to fail WP:WEB with flying colours, with an alexa rank of over 1,000,000. It currently consists of a forum with around 1000 members, with no mentions of media attention or any other claim of notability. (Delete) - Bobet 13:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Keeping

From WINP

There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap.

From WWIN

Internet guides - Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

This article satisfies those conditions for exclusion from the WWIN list. The PlayNOW! article described:

  • That it was included as part of Microsoft's Windows 98 push strategy.
  • That it was one of the biggest Australian gaming forums around
  • As far as Australian gaming discussion PlayNOW! certainly had both positive and negative aspects on the landscape.
  • Efforts were made to try and edit it into a more encylopedic language. Apart from a whole heap of NPOV issues this was mainly being met.

Regarding the speedy deletion request

If we could just get past the pettyness of certain members who continue to vandalise valuable contributions to the project, there is much history to be added. I am somewhat new to this whole Wikipedia article writing thing, but it's fairly obvious to me that something needs to be done about the person who keeps deleting whole swathes of information, and replaces it with somewhat incoherent ramble.

The history of the site pre-hackings needs to be expanded somewhat, including describing just how large a portal it was for the Australian gaming community, and the sorts of competitions it ran, etc. We do not wish this site to be lost to the annals of time in such a poor fashion.

Certainly, it may not be notable at all to foreigners, but proposing that it be deleted purely because "nobody cares" is a bit rich. Who cares about a lot of the stuff that Wikipedia has in it? Clikc the 'random article' link a few times, and you'll find something that's even less care-worthy to your average person than the history of PlayNOW! Funktronic2010

If you feel the subject is notable, please edit the article to reflect this. There are no mentions of any influence beyond its relatively small userbase, no links to any articles on any media that mention it (I tried to look but didn't find any). If the history of PlayNOW! is as interesting as you say it is, please write that in the article. - Bobet 09:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully intend to when I have the time, but I don't want my contributions deleted by the vengeful administrator of the site in question. Even if he only edits it, he simply cannot maintain a NPOV, and has (going by the article history) no skills whatsoever in constructing and/or maintaining a coherent paragraph of text. --Funktronic2010
...and just to demonstrate what we are having to deal with here, he's editing what people are saying on this article's Talk Page! He's an unregistered member with the IP 220.233.73.139 atm --Funktronic2010 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a large majority favouring merging but no consensus as to how much detail, if any, should be merged. {{Mergeto}} tags added. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers planets

Delete all. Pure cruft - excessive fictional detail of interest to an extremely circumscribed minority of even the fans of the show. List of Power Rangers planets will suffice.- CrazyRougeian talk/email 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles are hereby nominated for deletion:

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Media For Gamers

A page about an (non-notable) upcoming website, written with a P.R. tone. Almost the whole article is written in the future tense.

  • Delete or prove notability and highly improve the article (removing P.R. tone). Per nomination. --Abu Badali 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This won't be a notable website even when it is created, but right now this article is about something that doesn't exist. RGTraynor 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's your opinion, not a fact, last I checked, Wikipedia does not exist to support personal opinion. Seraphna 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Nor to be adspam to boost some fannish startup site; there are many gaming-oriented websites where advertising is acceptable, but this is not one. Now if you can prove that this site fulfills any of the criteria of WP:WEB, feel free. RGTraynor 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. It is about something which is still in development like hundreds of other articles on wikipedia. Just because it does not exist yet does not make a good reason to delete it. And if the tense or way it is written is a problem then change it, that is what wikipedia is about. If you think something should be changed, don’t just wait around and wait for somebody else to do it. --Paddyffrench 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom (non-notable website that doesn't even exist yet!). Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft Radio. Wickethewok 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. OMFG actually does exist currently and is being hosted with it's sister site, WCRadio.com, it has it's own forums section, submitted materials, and community. OMFG exists, it is in development, the nonexistance rule is for things that completely do not exist, like an article on purple pokla-dotted apples. Please do not abuse the deletion rules in order to get something removed. Seraphna 06:27 PM, 15 July (UTC)
  • This website doesn't meet WP:WEB even if it does exist. Also, note that this is AFD is the user's first contribution to WP. Wickethewok 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. http://www.blizzplanet.com/?action=news&id=821 <-- They have outside press releases. End of story. Seraphna 07:37 PM, 15 July (UTC)
    • Wow yeah, care to back up how they aren't? because they are a site supported and linked to by worldofwarcraft.com, the makers of the game in which they report about. Once again, you're pushing opinion over fact, they might not seem notable to you, but they are. Seraphna 08:45 PM, 15 July (UTC)
    • comment That's true. All the contributions from User:Seraphna to wikipedia are in this AFD. Remember this is not about counting votes. --Abu Badali 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Yes, clearly my choosing of this area as my first contribution to Wikipedia should somehow impede my arguement, I was unaware that there was a requirement of trolling the site in order to have a say. Seraphna 08:40 PM, 15 July (UTC)
  • Response - Well, it is considered general policy for editors to contribute some constructive content before commenting in AFDs. Keep in mind we have no way of knowing, for example, if you are an alias of another user. I'm sure you understand - besides it isn't a vote, if you make a good argument it will be heard. Also, that pretty much looks like a press release and blizzplanet.com doesn't look like any sort of notable media anyway. Wickethewok 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Exists, doesn't exist, either way, if there's debate on whether it even exists yet or not, I don't think any website is going to achieve notability for Wikipedia here any time soon if its that new. Homestarmy 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Okay, I'm being WP:BOLD here and closing this as a keep. The nominator withdrew her nomination and the article is significantly different from where it was at the beginning of the nomination. User:KarenAnn was far from acting with bad faith in nominating this and was not trying to prove a point, she nominated an article that she felt did not assert notability. Now I am closing this as it has spilled into a discussion filled with sarcasm and personal attacks with the opinions on the article long accomplished. I know I'm not an administrator and that I was involved in the discussion, but I don't see anything productive coming out of this anytime soon. So, keep. If anyone feels this is out of line, take it to WP:AN or WP:AN/I Metros232 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent-Meridian High School

High school and graduates NOT notable. (Sorry, patience is getting thin back here in March 2006 wikify bin!) KarenAnn 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 14:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per high school inherent notability. If someone really wants, I'll write out my opinion for the 1000'th time, but if not you can assume it to be a well-grounded opinion. AdamBiswanger1 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all high schools are notable. NawlinWiki 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only a school, or merge into a list somewhere if you wish to note its existence. Catchpole 15:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I happen to disagree, the longstanding consensus is that high schools are inherently notable. Delete - if the consensus is actually changing, I'm all for it. Let's start whacking public school articles Wikipediawide. RGTraynor 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People keep asserting that such a consensus exists, but so far nobody has pointed me to any policy page that says any such thing. The fact that secondary-and-lower schools are always hotly debated in AfD suggests that there is no consensus that all high schools are notable. Lack of consensus to delete does not imply a positive consensus in the other direction. It just means... there is no consensus. Each school nomination should be discussed on its individual merits. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:Part of the problem is that, while there isn't a consensus to speak of, there is precedent, because handfuls of high schools have survived AfDs with votes of "(Precedent says) all high schools are inherently notable". Indeed, some people are of the opinion that any and all high schools are on their own merits notable, which I find sketchy, but I'm willing to live and let live if someone's willing to take the time to write an article about it. While there isn't an official consensus, Wikipedia has been acting as if there were an "unspoken consensus" for a while now. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since I became involved in 2003, it has been frequently asserted that "high schools are always kept" and therefore there's a de facto precedent. Back in 2004, I wondered whether this was true, so I spent some time tracking high school VfDs and the actual results can be found at WP:VFD/HS. It was not even close to true. I don't mind disagreement about high schools, but I do mind misrepresentations by people attempting "proof by repeated assertion" of each others' inaccurate statements of nonexistent policy, nonexistence consensus, and nonexistent precedent. I really wish these discussions would address the individual articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nomination proximate to WP:Point. — RJH (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... doing thankless maintenence work. A favorite task of people trying to disrupt the project. --W.marsh 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I'm borderline when it comes to if schools are notable or not (I'm a member of the Wikiproject Schools WP:SCH) but I don't see anything worthwhile in this article that asserts notability. To me a school should have to have notability in the form of a newsworthy event occuring there, a noted program, or something of the like. To simply say when it was formed and some "famous" alumni is not doing much. And that's not to say I don't give them a chance, I've cleaned-up a lot of articles to a few lines worth of stubs in hopes that someone more familiar with them could give them notability, but this has been around since March with few improvements made. Metros232 15:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Had no claim to notability. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This means that in every topical area, we need some basis for discriminating, and in specific for schools that we need some school specific reason for keeping. This article gives us no reason to believe that anything noteworthy ever happened there or that it was the beginning of any noteworthy movement larger than itself. Contact notability is suspicious as best - being the spouse of a notable person does not automatically provide notability, and that relationship is a lot more significant (and usually longer lasting) than attendance at a school - so even if the graduates were notable that would not necessarily make the school notable. GRBerry 15:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand Article now has a claim to notability. Needs some time to work in the court case material before we can judge notability, let's give it that time. GRBerry 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it is different from many other encyclopedia. If we maintain that a High School is not notable because it is a High School, then the same should be said of a great many articles from certain TV programmes etc. Perhaps we should just leave these articles be, as they do not cause harm, they share information which may well be relevant to educational researchers, local communities and other persons not yet known. It would certainly be interesting for me to see pages on all the High Schools in Coventry, England and know that wikipedia was such a useful repository. Davidkinnen 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But what can you feasibly see someone getting out of this particular article? That it's a school in Washington that was founded in 1951 and that a couple of Miss Cornucopia Days graduated from there? Metros232 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no 'high schools' in Coventry, England. Catchpole 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is simply a stub just like 90% of the articles on wiki and I don't see a crusade to delete 90% of the website. Just click random article a few times to prove my point. There doesn't have to be a claim to fame to keep an article. I feel that for any article three or four sentences is fine and for a high school -date founded -where it is -anything interesting -etc works. It will be years or decades before even half of the stuff on wikipedia is actually "good" but if someone walks in off the net and types in this school they'll know a few sentences about it. If you delete this article watch out for the slippery slope Andman8 17:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete high school with no other claim of notablity Jaranda wat's sup 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per basically all above, and because me, friends, and teachers have written a relatively long article on our high school that took a lot of work, and I don't want to see all these articles of high schools get deleted. They are valuable articles. Another reason to keep high school articles is that they act as gateways from their students to Wikipedia. When students find out that their school is on this big, free, editable encyclopedia, they edit it. Point taken, some of this is vandalism and not notable stuff, but they really are gateways that can bring in valuable contributors. There really isn't any reason to delete this. -zappa.jake (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a vote on all high school articles but on this specific one. The point is that merely being a high school is not enough notability so the article must give some depth to be worthy of an article (In the same way I couldn't write a "[my name]" article just because I'm a human being and other human being bios exist) Staxringold talkcontribs 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are notable. Osomec 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that every high school merits an article. Casper Claiborne 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. obvious keep at every level: well written, notable alumni including a congressman, ACLU lawsuit. Nothing really to debate here. --JJay 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The school has multiple notable graduates and the article is well referenced. RFerreira 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting this article will set a bad precedent for allowing other school articles to be wiped from the face of Wikipedia. High schools and alumni are notable. --Ted 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please secondary schools are notable we can document them Yuckfoo 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Public high schools are finite, verifiable government entities - and are notable by nature. Any worthwile encyclopedia of public schools would have an entry mentioning Kent-Meridian High School. Furthermore, this particular high school also would be included in any complete annotated encyclopedia of gay rights as it could be of use to scholars and researchers of the development of human rights of sexual minorities. If it's not your cup of tea, may I suggest you ignore it and move on to a different article; or better yet, improve it. (Although as I write this, the article in question is better cited than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles.) One of the main goals of Wikipedia, according to Jimbo Wales, is to bring forth the "sum of human knowledge" for free, this includes articles that are trivial to some of us, but vital to others. - Davodd 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I withdraw my nomination. I don't want to be responsible for User:RJHall spamming other people as demonstrated above. I don't condone that kind of behavior and to prevent it I promise never ever to look at, wikify, copyedit, or in any other way have contact with an article on high schools ever again. KarenAnn 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, we have not once deleted an article about a verifiable high school in over a year, and the nominator has withdrawn his request for deletion. Silensor 05:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (as per Silensor), really, the basis for this deletion is whimsical. This article should not bear the brunt of the ideological qualms of a certain number of deletionists. Sure, there needs to be a standard of WP School articles. But there is necessarily a gradual process in achieving this aims, otherwise the project will be unable to thrive and develop in its evolutionary way. To delete such an article purely because it has not achieved "Good" or "Featured" article status is ridiculous. The notability of such articles has been asserted previously and held by admin precedent. Bad faith nomination. Jpeob 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no need to go into "any high school is..." arguments; this was flatly is, fo reasons explained enough. The article's even well-referenced - I'm impressed. TheGrappler 11:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat above comment made several entries above . . .
  • Comment repeated from several entries above - I withdraw my nomination. I don't want to be responsible for User:RJHall spamming other people as demonstrated above. I don't condone that kind of behavior and to prevent it I promise never ever to look at, wikify, copyedit, or in any other way have contact with an article on high schools ever again. KarenAnn 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment: The page is cosiderably improved than the state it was in when it was nominated. It was only a stub before - no sentences, no pictures, no references etc. I'm glad the nomination spurred you into make something of your page but you could have accomplished the same objective without spamming and ugliness. Pages that have been nominated before, which the creator and/or others support and want to keep, have been kept on the basis of the statement of that wish and a promise of a good faith effort to improve the page, without the unsavory use of spamming and making an ugly issue out of a mere nomination. You could have done the same. I have already indicated I will never ever touch a high school page again for any reason. Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunio Okawara shows that when there is a good faith effort to improve, spamming and politics and attacking the positions of others becomes unnecessary as most people (I thought previously) on Wikipedia are basically thoughtful and encouraging.
  • Personal attacks - I very much resent the personal attacks on me that this was a WP:POINT and a "bad faith nomination" or "ideological qualms of a certain number of deletionists." Examples:
*"Nomination proximate to WP:Point . . .Yeah... doing thankless maintenence work. A favorite task of people trying to disrupt the project."
*"the basis for this deletion is whimsical. This article should not bear the brunt of the ideological qualms of a certain number of deletionists."
*My personal belief, and I state it as such, is that User:RJHall's spamming brings out the worst in people. I have no point of view about high schools at all -- didn't even know this was a hot-button topic, and anyone who says it was a bad faith nomination did not take the trouble to look at it's history (or even read this discussion) to learn that the article was a stub when it was nominated and since has been improved and merged with Kent School District article. Doesn't Wikipedia say something about civility and assume good faith? KarenAnn 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Here, I completely object to the use of the word Spam. My messages were specifically directed at active members of the project that is dedicated to the improvement of school articles, which I thought was entirely apropos. Also how is asserting wikipedia policy a "personal attack"? Since you brought up stubs, the wikipedia policy on deletion states that the stub-nature of an article is not necessarily a problem requiring deletion. The recommended solution is to expand it. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* See Wikipedia:Spam, specifically Section 3 - Internal spamming. Once of the issues addressed is exactly what you did -- spamming to get votes for an issue. KarenAnn 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Fine, I stand corrected. In the future I shall discuss the matter through the project talk page instead. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hm. I'll have to remember this debate the next time someone claims that there's no general consensus about the notability of high schools. RGTraynor 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's unAmerican to even be having this discussion. Our high schools are the backbone of this country. No one should ever suggest such a thing again. Please keep a list of all who signed this page so that no one will ever dare to nominate another high school. I concurn completely with RGTraynor. He is definately on the right track and a good American. - Capit 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Furthermore, as suggested above, the motives of the person that nominated this wonderful high school definitely need to be questioned. It has to be a bad faith nomination and WP:POINT as has been pointed out above. It would be a huge farce if this, or any high school were to be deleted. Capit 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tool Shed

This appears to be nn, failing WP:CORP, unless genealogy matters. It's not even the biggest corp with this name! --Richhoncho 14:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balança para Gado

This is a promotional article Leonardo 14:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy keep - no obvious reason for delete. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dig

Afd added by User:206.32.147.254, but nomination not completed.

Anons cannot create pages, so it is not their fault they can't complete the nomination page. Don't assume bad faith, please. Kimchi.sg 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proton E-Purse

Non-notable product. --BradBeattie 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Product does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Only 161 GHits, and several were Wikipedia mirrors. And from what little I could find, seems to be declining in usage. --Satori Son 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, since the merge opinions are somewhat conditional and the Toontown Online article does not have a section where this would fit (correctly - as has been pointed out, WP:NOT a game guide). --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown Guide GSW

Seems to be either an advertisment or 'nn' enough to have its own page. A "Toontown Guide" page has been previously deleted. Ethii 11:35, 5 July 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, Avi 14:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlavaNap

Non-notable software. --BradBeattie 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ifnord 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glifted

Non-notable band. --BradBeattie 14:43, 11 July 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, Sam Blanning(talk) 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete on verifiability grounds. Where are the sources? With an appropriate source or two in the article to provide verification, I will gladly change my vote to Keep on notability grounds. Captainktainer * Talk 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Nissan_RB_engine. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RB26DETT

Unreferenced, full of red links, unencyclopedic, duplicates info at Nissan RB engine#RB26DETT (a page which predates this article by 13 months), not properly categorised, created by an anonymous IP who has made no other contributions. I would contact article contributors about this, but as far as I can see, aside from anonymous IPs the only edits have been various bots trying to auto-tidy or revert it. DeLarge 14:00, 5 July 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, Avi 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MindSaw Recordings

No claim of notability in article, Ghits say they have put out "2 promos" No artist names quoted. Article's creator has had some of his contributions reverted as vandalism. --Richhoncho 14:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism/protologism with no GHits; smacks strongly of WP:NFT (was deprodded anonymously by a school IP address), so sent for procedural AfD nomination. ~ Matticus78 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Delete. as the article says "Dick but Legal" is a neologism. If the article says it fails WP:NEO then who am I to argue? --Richhoncho 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99775

Individual ZIP codes are not notable.NawlinWiki 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it isn't notable, but does that mean it's worthless information? Maybe you think so, and that's respectable, but does that mean that as soon as someone finds it pointless it should be gone? There is an article for a hypothetical flag, but there's a problem with an existing zip code? All of the information here is fact--no opinion, no hypotheticals, and no vulgarity. Who does this article harm by existing? And by those same respects, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I've seen stranger things become hobbies in the past. Mercer5089 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response It's not worthless information, but it's adequately covered by List of ZIP Codes in Alaska. There is a similar article for each state's ZIP codes. We don't need 100,000 individual articles, one on each ZIP code. NawlinWiki 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • >Response Likewise, there is a list of all the countries in the world, and yet each one has an individual article. Once again, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I'm sorry if this article is harming someone, but I see this kind of article as the reason it is so important to have a user-built encyclopedia. Now, if this was an article on "123 Main Street, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99702" and had the text "John Brown lives here, who is 47 years old and likes to collect string," I would find that to be "not notable," as this is coverable under one's profile. But for this, I just can't accept the problem presented. I understand it, and I respect the motives, but I simply disagree. Mercer5089 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zip codes just aren't notable. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete Define "notable." I don't want to get into a symantic game, but why delete it? What harm does it bring? Nobody has answered that question yet except to say "it's not notable." If I decide that the article on "rock paper scissors" or the "51 star flag" are not notable, how do I know if I'm right or not? How is this not notable? And then defend that by telling me what is. What is so scary about an article on "99775?" Are we afraid that what may follow is an article on (god help us all) an area code? What motivation is there to delete this other than to say "not notable?" I for one am not afraid of experimenting with knowledge and expanding its availability to those who's interests are less than known or popular. Don't tell me this isn't an issue about not wanting to expand knowledge, either, because as far as I can tell, there is no real reason to do this other than to say it was done and add another notch to the ol' wiki merit badge belt. Mercer5089 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As redundant. There's an article on both the city and the university. There is nothing otherwise special about the zip code that warrants an individual article. --DarkAudit 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zipcruft – Gurch 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's non-notable...because there's nothing notable about it. There's nothing special about that zip code that makes it notable in any way. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all information ever. -PresN 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you provide no substance - DON'T DELETE I understand that there is already a page for zip codes, but that page is a LIST, not a detail. And yes, there are links to the City of Fairbanks, but 99775 does not cover the city at all (UAF is outside the city), and yes, there is also one for UAF, but the one for UAF does not talk about the zip code. And why should it?? I don't think it should. It's not repetative because it provides informatino (and will provide more information in the future) that isn't centralized around this topic anywhere else, nor is it covered in the articles on Fairbanks of UAF. I think that a zip code can be valuable and can be expanded on with further research. Nobody gave this article any time to develop, not even from its author, before it was flagged. Zip codes are different from the cities and counties they overlay, just as area codes are different. Demographic information is important in this world--everybody wants to know how many people are where and how big the largest xyz is (or small) compared to another. Stop avoiding the question of who this hurts; or at least think about the fact that your interests don't reflect those of everyone else. You can not say with any certainty (or without lying) that nobody is going to take an interest in the possibilities this page could have. All you can say is "delete, not notable" or "delete, repetative" or "delete, jibberish." But nobody has defined notable, I've shown it's not repetative, and there are people who will take an interest. What fun is a user-based encyclopedia if Johnny Brown-Shirt is going to decide for everyone whether their information and their want to spread information regarding diverse interests is correct or not? This article does not express an opinion, it is not political, it is not profane, and it deals with a real subject that has tangible information associated with it. It's a tool for demographics and for geography, as well as a tool for those of us who are interested in the abstract. I'm sorry this article isn't about cartoon characters or star trek or fellatio or call centers, but I find each of those just as pointless as you find 99775. and in terms of there being nothing special about it there are pleanty of things that are the same way...look at the 2 line descriptions of cartoon characters from Doom. I could consider those just as not special as you consider 99775. I apologize for forgetting encyclopedias were not for information, and that wikipedia doesn't want to grow, by the way. Mercer5089 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [University of Alaska Fairbanks] and redirect --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 90210, a notable zipcode if ever there was one, doesn't have its own article, only a disambig page. Tevildo 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete "90210" doesn't have an article because one hasn't been written yet. There were no articles on the Civil War, small pox, Australia, or the Beatles until one was written. The only one of you that makes sense is the special contribution to merge the article. And even that I hesitate to say is best. And why, dare I ask, under the article "90210" is there allowed the definition "the number ninty thousand two hundred ten?" THAT'S notable?? Gimme a break. Mercer5089 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uh... what, exactly, would we write in these individual articles about zip codes? "XXXXX is a portion of Such-and-such street in Sometown, Wherever. It includes eighteen houses, a convenience store, two marijuana grow-ops and twelve dogs that bark all the damn time." Sorry, man, just doesn't make much sense. Tony Fox (speak) 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand your point, Mercer5089, but keeping this article would set a precedent in which all U.S. and international zip codes would get a wikipedia article. The vast majority of these articles won't have any information other than what's already in the article on the city/town, so there's no reason to go through the trouble. The only reason I could see this being useful is if you want to include the location of zip code borders in wikipedia, and this could be added to the article on the city in question. Amazinglarry 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete What would go in these articles are demographics. It is possible to have the number of men, women, structures, and the borders of these areas. I don't care how many dog's bark all the damn time (nor do I care abour Doom, Ladybugs, or the ionosphere, but they all have articles too). This is information on the political divisions of the postal system and the demographics within them. And yes, it does set a precedence that zip codes get a page, but so what? Are you forced to go through every one before you can surf Wikipedia? I'm not. The irrelevant articles that I consider crap are still up there, but I really don't mind, because I ignore them. But all that aside, there IS information that can go there that doesn't have to do with drugs and dogs, and that I'm certain you can just forget it exists if you don't want to read it.Mercer5089 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. Should we have an article for every phone number, too? --Rehcsif 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I think that notable zip codes should be described the word notable being abstract and relative. 99775 may not be notable to you but it sounds like it is notable to Mercer5089 and if the information is wrong then let us correct it but don't cast it aside. I hate when wikipedia administrators try to play God with good information. I do think the title of the article should be changed to US Zip Code 99775 with 99775 as a way to reference it other than that the article is fine and should be left alone Emperor 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and everyone. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. Mercer, how could a zip code be so important? --Mason 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It's not that it's so important. In fact, it's really not. The point is that it's not not important. Why is it so terrible to have an article on 99775? Yes, it opens the door for other zip codes, but why is that a problem either? This is so stupid, and all I wanted to do was expand the reaches of Wikipedia. Why do you all care so much if you'll never read this anyway?? What's the problem? Does this set the precedence that from now on whenever I find an article that doesn't interest me, I can flag it for deletion? Come on, guys, it's a stupid article to begin with, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it DOES provide information and that it has POTENTIAL to provide MORE information. Yeah, yeah, you see my point and you don't care. That's great. I see your point too and I don't care. But for whatever reason that doesn't seem to matter. What should matter is that Wikipedia is expanding and that I'm trying to help. If you don't like the information and you don't find it interesting, just don't read it. Mercer5089 03:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable zip code (this is no 90210). Unnecessary article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Demographic and political makeup of a neighborhood, if needed, can be added to the article for the city it's in. Congressional districts already have their own articles, and for the most part, individual city wards do not warrant their own encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not the Chamber of Commerce. This is a three sentence article that has seen no improvement since the AfD began. --DarkAudit 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response But they aren't demographics of a neighborhood, since more than one neighborhood can be in a zip code. In addition, why is there allowed a page for every congressional district, but not every zip code (Other than this ludacrist excuse that there are 100,000 zip codes [which there aren't])? Political divisions (not Democrat and Republican, political as in a political map) are important to people for both research and interst. You're right, Wiki is not a CoC, but it's also not the George Washington Museum nor is it the Star Trek Fan Club, but that doesn't discredit the information being put on pages relating to either of those. Mercer5089 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still don't think it's a good idea to have an article on every zip code, mainly because the information Mercer has mentioned (demographics, etc) mostly echoes what's already on city pages. But there actually is some precedent for having zip code articles on wikipedia - there are articles on all of the area codes in the U.S. The ones I looked at don't have much information on them except the current borders and history of how various area codes have been divided up over time, though. Would this precedent change anyone's votes? Amazinglarry 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response Granted, it seems a little ludacrist to have an article for every zip code. But if that is true, why was there allowed the precedence that every number gets a page (ref: 1, 2, 3...)? And you are correct, there is an article for each area code...even though the same arguments against a zip code page could be applied just as equally. If this is deleted, would you object to me campaigning for the area codes and the numbers to be deleted as well? Just as there is history in numbers and in area codes, and there is history in zip codes as well. Speaking of history, if every year gets a page, and the precedence has been set that a hypothetical United States 51-star flag gets a page, then aren't there a hypothetically infinite number of years that page could be created for? You're right, precedence is dangerous! Don't call them different...you're worried about precedence that allows 100,000 new pages and you're worried that the same info can be attached elsewhere. Numbers and years allow an infinite number of pages, and area codes could also be attached elsewhere. If you want to argue the slippery slope, then it's all or nothing, I guess. Mercer5089 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not every individual number has its own page - guidelines for which numbers can have them are at WP:NUM and WP:1729. Note that 90210 does _not_ pass these guidelines as a _number_. Tevildo 11:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response You are correct that there are guidelines, but those guidelines still allow a hypothetically infinite number of pages to be allowed, since an infinite number of 0s can be added to the end of any number. At the very least, zip codes are finite. Mercer5089 12:26, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
        • In addition My I draw your attention to the existance of pages on highways. Since highways are contained entirely within cities, counties, or states, it would be correct through the above complaints about "99775" to say that these should be covered in their respective municipalities? In addition, why is there no fear that these highway pages will also create a large number of pages? Mercer5089 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.ThuranX 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete; CSD A7.--Andeh 17:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Titans

Page was deleted previously as nonsense per CSD:A7. Page has now been recreated as a copy of a currently existing page. In addition, deletion was removed numerous times by author, AfD was edited by author, and author has vandalized my user page.Wildthing61476 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog people

Originally deleted for patent nonsense. Listed for speedy deletion, but deletion tage was removed by author. Now listing for non-notable neologism. Wildthing61476 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs involving computer and video games

List with arbitrary inclusion standards which can never be completed, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous nominations are here: 1st nomination, 2nd nomination. --Canley 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominated twice previously including once by this nom in May when it was an overwhelming keep. Please link to the previous noms. Otherwise, pretty extensive list of songs involving games. Inclusion standards seem fairly direct, but could obviously be tightened. I see no reason why the list couldn't be "completed" (to the same extent as any article here). --JJay 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was under the impression that there was a finite amount of songs, especially songs which use videogame sounds. The list is completable, inclusion standards could be tightened but that is a reason to improve, not delete. Trjn 10:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetJaxer

Spam. Artw 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was malformed, discussed elsewhere. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Eris

I don't understand why this article is going to be deleted. This is not a marketing or promoting attempt...

Cheers nemo

Note: The AfD nomination was malformed. The deletion debate for this page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemo Sandman. --ais523 09:01, 11 July 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 of the nomination was seems a likely search redirect; if not, please list at WP:RfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somtaaw Explorer

It's been moved and this page is no longer needed, as the main link where it would redirect has been changed.--Awesome Username 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Motorsport

Basically the reason I've put it up for deletion is that under "Wiki is not a Soapbox" it states... 

 3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and 
 unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 
 "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations 
 are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for 
 an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. 
 See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

To my knowledge this article falls into being about a local company.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brollachan (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was DELEte. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DS EXPLOit

Also nominating:

As it contains (or contained) identical content.

Appears to be advertising non-notable software product (manages just 3 GHits for "DS EXPLOit" "Content management", two of which are irrelevant). Articles edited by single use account and anonymously only. ~ Matticus78 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Mayer

Fails WP:BIO as non-notable. Hockey player with but a single NHL game, unremarkable (and short) minor league career, unremarkable college career. RGTraynor 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On futher investigation the List of NHL one gamers seems to have been created specifically to stop these sort of stubs.--Nick Y. 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect change back into a redirect to the list of nhl one gamers Masterhatch 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles East High School

Contains only original research Vic 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Fried Cruelty.com

Delete. Duly covered publicity stunt. Nothing more to say about the person, coverage is feeble. This is not notability.- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn per improved version. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Matt

Can't find anything to indicate this guy's notability, but 'internet phenomena' are hard to pin down. Let's see what the editors think. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete content (redirect if you want) (Liberatore, 2006). 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On garden leave

DicDef. 'On garden leave' is a universal phrase meaning to be on paid leave, for a range of reasons. If it is to be given this specialist meaning then it must be sourced before it can even be moved to Wiktionary. Possible hoax. Delete BlueValour 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Danny Clark

Executive VP of Circuit City. I don't think we list corporate execs below the chief executive level. NawlinWiki 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Source

Previously nominated here. I closed that AfD as 'no result' because significant work was done to the article during the AfD, and neither of the two editors arguing for the deletion addressed whether it made any difference or not. Apart from the article's creator there were no other participants. At the request of someone else, I've opened a new nomination which will hopefully result in a clearer consensus on the finished article. The reason given for the original nomination was "advertisement, no evidence of notability". No opinion at this time. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated, but didn't push it when the page creator made substantial improvements over the original page which looked like an ad.

I think the article is sufficiently well-developed to make it a tough call. I'm also going with No opinion. --Dweller 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ([41]) reference alone is sufficient to prove notability in my book. Strong keep. --Dweller 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - my concern is the number of unsourced statements. If the statements are accurate and find sources then the company would be notable and I should be happy to change my opinion. BlueValour 17:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *No opinion - in view of extra sourcing. BlueValour 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to BlueValour: Hi, I am the original author of this article (my name is different only because I could not remember my old password). I think that the souces I found online will help allay your concerns about unsourced statements. I have filled in almost all the [citation needed] and even added some additional ones. Since this is my first article, I would appreciate help in formatting. On a related note, are articles from PR Newswire or any articles that have a company boilerplate OK to cite? If yes, I can source the remaining [citation needed] without a problem. Jay 23 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In view of the sources added, I think it's a keeper. --PresN 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. References seem to bring it comfortably within WP:CORP. Tevildo 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK; I have cleaned up the article further and eliminated much duplication. BlueValour 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution - sorry, but the quality of verification, i.e. whether the sources back up the article, is not 100%. Let's go through the sections of the article backed up by footnotes at time of writing. (After edit conflict - unfortunately the article was cleaned up while I was writing and the footnotes are now different, but the main claims and the references that try to back them up seem to remain the same in a different order. Please click on the above linked version to see what the numbering below corresponds to.)
    1. "benefiting from the recent success of its handheld Touch Screen Sudoku" - dubious. Backed up by a guide from a website for the elderly which mentions the product, but says that is "creating a lot of excitement". To me "success" equals "profit", not "excitement". There was excitement about the Titanic.
    2. "nominated for Toy of the Year in 2005" - verified, but not much of an assertion of notability. According to the awarding body's official site, "Representatives from any toy manufacturer or toy-related company are eligible to nominate products and/or companies for award categories defined in the T.O.T.Y. Awards Program Guidelines. TIA members may submit nominations free of charge." [42]
  • Response to Sam Blanning: I looked into the award guidelines on the TIA (awarding body) site and it is a multi-stage process. From mid-September to the end of October in 2005, any toy company could write in a nomination for a product they believe deserves one of the 11 Toy of the Year awards. The TIA reviews all of the written nominations, tabulates them, and culls down the list to 5 nominees in each category. The TIA sends out this paper ballot to all TIA members who vote for the winner in each category. The winners were announced in February 2006. See the following site for reference:

http://www.toy-tia.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Toy_Industry_Association/toty/Award_Guidelines/Award_Guidelines.htm Jay 23 03:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    1. "featured in the celebrity 'swag' given out at the 12th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards" - verified. Nice bit of trivia.
    2. "one of the pioneers responsible for the rise of the 'retro gaming' market" - not verified. The "source" is the interview with the Executive VP, and you can probably interpret his remarks as saying that... but we can't rely on one of the company directors for such of a claim.
    3. Same claim as 4.
    4. "with... the Intellivision 10, Techno Source sold over 1,000,000 units". Questionable. Sourced here and here. The former reports that a spokesman for the company claimed they sold 1m units - well, he's probably not lying, but he's not impartial, and the key is verifiability, not truth. There are a lot of ways to generate a million sales, and getting a million people to pay you full price to own your product is only the most obvious one. The latter, from the same website, repeats the 1,000,000 figure as fact, without attribution to the spokesman. Maybe that means they've checked and it's true, or maybe they just left the source out that time. As I said, questionable.
    5. "and received the National Parenting Center Seal of Approval in 2004". Verified by the sources above. Ok, so it works.
    6. "Techno Source has sold more Intellivision games today than Mattel Electronics originally sold in the 1980s". Verified, probably. Sourced to thelogbook.com, who attribute it to "the original programmers of the classic Intellivision video games", so no reason to doubt this. But how much can that be, really?
    7. "Dr. Toy named Techno Source to its list of 100 Best Products for this assortment in 2005". Verified... but 100 every year is a lot of toys. Most of the companies on the list are probably not notable.
    8. "The company has also grown through the success of its handheld Sudoku and other puzzle games" - not verified, it's the About.com site again, which says that Techno Source sell handheld Sudoku, but nothing about 'other puzzle games', or that it's part of their growth.
  • After all that, I'm still leaning towards a weak keep (see below), as the amount of third-party coverage means the company is probably worth an article, there just don't seem to be strong concrete claims to being a particularly high-growth company (of which there are an awful lot in the technology sector with less ambiguous claims to fame). The claims of growth and suchlike are ephemeral - if I saw even a modest sourced turnover or profit growth figure, I'd be much happier than with a hundred more websites - and it's somewhat dubious how much of an achievement the other claims are. There just needs to be a more rigorous approach to sourcing in the article, being more cautious about the claims to notability if necessary. I do urge editors to check the quality, not just quantity, of sources when they support keeping on that basis.
  • And I guess selling 1,000,000 creaky old games is probably an achievement, even if the accountant in me is demanding "for how much? did they need to sell at a discount to move that many? did they cover overheads?" etc - after all, if it turns out they were selling them for peanuts and go bankrupt, we still cover notable failures. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Sam Blanning: The original Intellivision sold 3.2 million games in the 1980s. Here's a press release for reference when Techno Source introduced the Intellivision 10 2nd Edition http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-10-2006/0004279335&EDATE= —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.148.51 (talk • contribs) .
    • From that PR: "Techno Source expects their line of Intellivision branded products to surpass..." (emphasis mine) Not only are press releases are not reliable sources for assertions of notability (if a company is truly notable, third-party sources will publish those assertions, and only after they've been through a fact-checking process), but that doesn't even claim that they have surpassed Matell, only that they expect to. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP for lacking non-trivial third-party articles. The references are an avowed press release, a couple of newsletters, a catalog listing, and a couple of blogs. I admire the dogged persistence of the author, and do not anticipate this will go easily. Tychocat 07:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you (or anyone else saying delete) read this ([43])? This is a keeper and this Afd should be closed pronto. --Dweller 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, yes, I did read it. It's trade-show glad-handing, by an association whose stated purpose is to put on trade shows for the people who pay it. I did not discount it as non-trivial, however it is scarcely the "multiple non-trivial published works" as suggested by WP:CORP, and its singular questionable appearance only points out the company cannot muster the necessary media notice to meet guidelines. Tychocat 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are trivializing this award expecially since Techno Source is not even a member of the TIA. The fact that Techno Source was nominated even though they are not a member seems to at least partially counter your point. Some would say that the Oscars are show business glad-handing, but that does not mean that the actors or actresses nominated are any less notable. See the reference here to search the TIA member database: [44] Jay 23 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Tychocat's reasoning above I now think that delete would be the better option. The claims to notability are just too shaky for me to support an encyclopaedia article on the company. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relevant standard is WP:CORP - as a private company it obviously can't pass the third (stock market index) test. The second test is inclusion of the company on ranking indices by well-known and independent publications - I don't see that in the citations of the article or in the evidence here. The first test is "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". "Been the subject of "means that the article, or a large fraction of it, needs to be primarily about the company. Coverage of products does not meet the standard. I find no coverage that meets this test. The artcile also reads like advertising copy. GRBerry 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also take another look at the article. I have added several more sources that show Techno Source winning several awards for their educational products in preschool as well as entertainment products for older consumers. Jay 23 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in my comment immediately before the request, the test is not whether there is coverage of the products (that would be relevant for an article on a specific product), it is whether there are multiple works about the company. GRBerry 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This seems like a very difficult standard to attain for a private company because the very things that would make a company notable, such as sales volume, are the very things that are not publicly reported. In terms of notability, several sources I have cited state that Techno Source was one of the pioneers in the retro gaming market in 2003 when they partnered with Intellivision. Additionally, are not some companies defined by their products? In this case, award-winning products that have been well-received and written about by various publications for their entertainment and educational value should prove a degree of notability for the company that produces them.Jay 23 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete per author request. Roy A.A. 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEO2 EWW

Non-notable fancruft trivia with no potential for expansion. Recommend we delete and do not merge or redirect. —Caesura(t) 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although there would be nothing wrong with mentioning it in a James Bond-related article. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Title is also wrong - it should be KE 02 EWW (Zero rather than O, two spaces). Tevildo 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in other words merge back to Die Another Day, after correction--Nick Y. 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since a couple of people have suggested merging, I just wanted to clarify that the reason I said "do not merge" is that it doesn't seem to me that the license plate number of some car in a movie necessarily merits even a brief mention in an encyclopedia, unless that particular license plate number was significant to the plot in some way or is a focus of media or popular attention. Lots of movies have cars with license plate numbers, but that doesn't mean we need to include this information in the respective articles. (Of course, maybe this particular license plate number is a focus of media or popular attention and I'm just not aware of it, but a Google search didn't seem to indicate that.) —Caesura(t) 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont' freakin care! but do something really productive with your time instead— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffjhicks (talk • contribs)
  • Comment In this diff, the author said we could delete it. Therefore, it can now be speedied as a {{db-author}}. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Cook

Vanity Tadanisakari 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was deleted by author's consent. Friday (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addison (band)

Disputed speedy, recreated by author. This band is about to have one indie EP, available soon. No other indication of significance, nothing to indicate they come close to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope monkey

The article says it's a slang expression, so fails WP:NEO. Not to be confused with the The scope Monkey Trial which is a redirect.--Richhoncho 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acquired-Sight.com

Article on a small ISP that fails WP:CORP notability wise. Google hits for ""Acquired Sight" + ISP" = 71. No 3rd press mentions either. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all, I suppose this information doesn't warrant WP:CORP as much as it was going to cover the pioneering and business practices of Outdoor Wireless ISPs in 2001 using Acquired-Sight.com as an example.

Google hits a year or 2 ago would have provided more than enough chatter, however the business sold to a company who downsized it to be their 2nd income with existing customers. Their decision basically gave the appearance of ASDC being defunct. I will slow down the pace of updates to this article until it's determined that this article may stay. --thank you ~ ~ ~ ~ ASDC's entry author

  • Comment If you want to write an article on the business practices of outdoor wireless ISP's, it shouldn't be titled so. Also, such an article could not use original research. (see Wikipedia:No original research) I'm guessing that "business practices of Outdoor Wireless ISPs in 2001" is far too specific a topic for wikipedia. --Xyzzyplugh 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Crowd, Larry "LaPret" Pretlow II, KieArra 'Mizz Redz" Pretlow

A nice collection of articles about a teenage group, detailing their notable record company, and their platinum-selling single. Only problem is that none of it seems to hold up. All I can actually find on these people is a myspace page. Fan-1967 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Corrections Made I am in the process of trying to remove the KieArra 'Mizz Redz" Pretlow page. I have removed the incorrect information from the remaining two articles and I ask that you forgive me of my actions. I thought that So So Def Recordings housed Young Crowd but it turns out to be Kilah World Entertainment.

I was also notified that I was given non-official information pretaining to the "Da Starting 5" single.

Therefore I have made the corrections in order to keep these (2) pages/articles open.

~Dontrell Mc Bride~ Writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs)

  • Comment With the incorrect information removed, there is nothing left to assert that these people meet the WP:MUSIC standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Kilah World Entertainment" likewise does not appear to exist beyond a myspace page. Fan-1967 17:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Crowd's official website www.young-crowd.com also links from its own myspace. Young Crowd is a real music group with an upcoming Nation-Wide (USA) Mixtape Release on October 10, 2006.

If you still wish for the mention of KILAH WORLD ENTERTAINMENT to be deleted, I will do so. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs) Dontrell McBride - Writer 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whether Kilah is deleted or not looks like it won't matter in the slightest. Please review the standards at WP:MUSIC. An upcoming release on a label that has no other acts, and whose website is on a free site like cabspace.com, doesn't even remotely come close to those standards. Fan-1967 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After review of the rules, can the mention of the label remain in the articles of Young Crowd and Larry "LaPret" Pretlow II

I have read the presented regulations and I again ask to be forgiven. I fully understand that as far as certification goes KILAH WORLD ENTERTAINMENT cannot be proven to be a real label. Please note that it is a independent label located in D.C. they have severala acts who perform locally and also have local airplay of their singles in D.C.

I ask that these 2 articles not be deleted because they would really be of aid to both the careers of [Young Crowd]] and Larry "LaPret" Pretlow II. Both artist are preparing to sign professional recording deals and release professional singles. Just having an article on WIKIPEDIA regarding their carrers thus far would be a tremendous aspect of their Nation-Wide promotion. Thanks! Dontrell McBride - Writer 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand. KILAH is not the issue. There is, at this point, zero chance of any of these articles not being deleted. Wikipedia does not provide free webspace to help unknown performers gain exposure. Fan-1967 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not using Wikipedia for Exposure

You misundersdtood what I'm saying. Young Crowd is currently touring the USA promoting their mixtape release on local radio. They also are conducting performances and youth speeches. The mixtape will be a nation-wide release just like a Beyonce album. Young Crowd is just signed with an independent label. Each day that passes more and more people become familiar with Young Crowd and their music. It would only be fair to allow the Young Crowd and LaPret articles to be aprt of the Wikipedia these teenagers are doing something that has not been done and its worthy of being one of the millions of articles featured on this website. Dontrell McBride - Writer 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that this page has been up for almost a month and today when I edit it all of a sudden it has to be deleted.

  • Go back and read WP:MUSIC again. Does Young Crowd have at least two releases from a major label (already released, not coming)? Are they the subject of numerous articles in the press? There are thousands of bands who are going to release a CD and hope that it will be successful. Until they have actually achieved some level of attention, they do not qualify for an article here. (The fact that the article was there for a month before being noticed is irrelevant.) Fan-1967 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair, for YOUNG CROWD to not be allowed to have a page on WIKIPEDIA

These teenagers who have choosen not to be elsewhere drinking and smoking can't even get a page on a website that features artist and their accomplsihments. They are nor just one of these "thousands" of other bands you spoke of. Dontrell McBride - Writer 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs)

I will contact the PRESS/MEDIA I don't think that fair to have a site displaying musicians and their accomplishments and not featured them in their prime!!! I will consider contacting the media and press outlets. WIKIPEDIA should not be allowed to function in that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs)

  • Comment While you are at it perhaps you should bring the media and the public up to speed on the unfair practices of encyclopedia brittanica. Wikipedia is much more inclusive. I'd like to see you change britanica's inclusion standards based on public outrage over the exclusion of young crowd.--Nick Y. 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Wikipedia should not be allowed?" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It hosts pages that (nominally) are about important or notable events, people, places, etc. Whether or not you feel that it is fair, according to the agreed upon rules, this band does not qualify as notable. I'm sorry that you disagree, you can petition for a change in the rules if you want. --PresN 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When they are famous and notable, we can get an article for it. Until then, the articles, and the image made with Microsoft Word and paint need to go for failing musical-related inclusion standards. To the author & band: Read my first sentence again. Kevin_b_er 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of them are verifiably notable. -- Mikeblas 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - fails WP:MUSIC. Tychocat 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All The Young Crowd article contains a claim to have an international release of a single, but offers no verification nor a basis for verification (no title for the single). If it has done a tour, the WP:BAND standard is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources." As no sources are used, this test is failed. As far as I can see, all of the tests in WP:BAND are failed. In fact, as no sources are used in any of the articles, WP:NOR is failed. The Young Crowd article is also signed, in violation of WP:OWN. The "Wikipedia should not be allowed" argument above demonstrates a lack of understanding of the WP:NOT rules. These articles violate multiple rules withing that policy including 1) not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site, 2) not a soapbox, 3) not a publisher of original thought. Given the username of the author, I also have WP:VAIN concerns, but upon seeing his signature I don't currently have any WP:AUTO concerns. GRBerry 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was nomination withdrawn.  RasputinAXP  c 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Andrascik

Non-notable hockey player who played a single NHL game in his entire career Nick Y. 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep While he only played one game in the NHL, he also played 97 games in the World Hockey Association, which at the time was considered an equal to the NHL. to say that steve wasn't notable because of his time in the WHA is to say that the WHA wasn't on similar footing as the NHL in the 70s, which would be a whole different ball game. During the 70s, especially the early to mid 70s, the WHA was a legitimate contender with the NHL. Masterhatch 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Masterhatch or someone else, perhaps you could look through List of NHL one gamers an parse out the non-notables?--Nick Y. 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:BIO, "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" are notable. Hence, all NHL one-gamers are notable, although it is obvious that keeping a list such as the above one is preferable to having each and every one-gamer having their own article. BoojiBoy 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn by Nick.  RasputinAXP  c 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Keenan

Non-notable hockey player who play one game in the majors. Nick Y. 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would rather see this page turned back into a redirect to List of NHL one gamers instead of being deleted because after it gets deleted, a new redirect page must be created pointing it there anyway. Masterhatch 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above- PresN 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoneClient

NN software Computerjoe's talk 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. I was about to speedy it when I saw the Afd, and it seems very unlikely to produce any real objection to deletion. Friday (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chercrazy

nn vanity fanpage -- eo 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Corollary

Unknown protologism, zero Ghits for "Archibald Corollary"; none for "George Archibald" + corollary, either. NawlinWiki 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Nocturnal Darkness, Magnor (band), Xenobite

First of all, I am neither a native English-speaker nor a regular user of the English Wikipedia, so if I am saying or doing something curious, it most probably isn’t on purpose.

For the article, I strongly believe it is fake. I first stumbled across it in April 2006 and was a bit surprised that I never heard about the band before, as I am fairly interested—and involved—in this kind of music for quite a while. So I consulted the two or three bigger search engines, and none of them returned a single match, which hardened my suspicion that this “band” doesn’t actually exist. I thereupon added a speedy deletion template which has been removed by DakotaKahn some hours later. I wasn’t aware of the fact that in the English Wikipedia IPs aren’t allowed to nominate pages for speedy deletion. However, in view of the reason I gave, it, in my opinion, wasn’t the optimal way to remove the template without continuing the discussion elsewhere.

Since April, articles have been started in three further Wikipedias, the “band” has been added to the Metal Archives index, and appeared on various other web sites, yet I haven’t seen a single publication so far that isn’t entirely based on the above-mentioned article. I haven’t talked to a single black metal fan who has ever heard of this “band” before. So, as long as nobody is able to convince me of the opposite, I regard this “band” to be fake. --89.58.61.207 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fulton (minister)

Nonnotable minister, for virtually same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan W. Hansen. NawlinWiki 18:10, 11 July 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: with no discussion of the significant work done to the article since the delete nomination and sole supporting opinion, no consensus. When I say "Significant work" I do not mean that the article now meets WP:BIO - that has simply not been discussed sufficiently and I do not attempt to make any judgement on whether it does. Consequently this AfD should not prejudice a re-nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Arth

Non-notable biography. "Michael E. Arth" gets 65 Google hits with only 17 unique results. "Michael Arth" gets about 500 results and a lot don't relate to the subject of this article including a t-shirt designer, a principal, and a young Democrat member from Harvard. Metros232 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"DO NOT DELETE" This article is still being edited to Wiki standards. Even if 1/5 of those 517 Google hits refer to Arth, isn't that notable? I read somewhere that 250,000 art prints of his have been sold. He has a published book. There have been a number of articles written about him. (signed) LynnD Don't delete. How about instead a less notable length for a less notable biography? elikqitie 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: This biography has been reduced in size and wikified. 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Metros232, I came up with 18,700 Google hits on Michael E. Arth and 28,100 hits under Michael Arth, for a total of 46,800 hits. I have no idea how many are unique to this particular Michael E. Arth, but after looking at several random pages, I'd say it's a lot. He was also a rock poster artist in the early 70s, and fine art posters he did in the 70s and 80s are still in circulation--so it's the same Arth, as artist, house designer/builder, urban designer, writer etc, etc.. He's had a lot of incarnations and at least a few of them are notable 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, a second search through Safari came up with over 160,000 Google hits for Michael E. Arth and Michael Arth. Curious. Pablo Picasso brought 810,000 hits. There is probably only one Pablo Picasso though vs. maybe 4 or 5 Michael Arths. 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndunn (talk • contribs)

18,700 and 28,100? I have no clue what you're talking about. I did my Google searches again and came up with 68 and 597. Not even close to your search. Metros232 11:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metros232, That's strange. Do you have some finely tuned search system? If so,I'd like to get that. I reran the searches. I now realize that for my Safari search it was going through Yahoo, not Google. Sorry about that. So I ran both Yahoo and Google. I came up with a total of 185,700 for Yahoo and a total of 47,000 for Google. I copied them here for you to see:

Yahoo search:

"1 - 10 of about 66,700 for Michael E. Arth - 0.17 sec" "1 - 10 of about 119,000 for Michael Arth - 0.24 sec. (About this page)"

Google search:

Web Results (Michael E. Arth) "1 - 10 of about 18,900. Search took 0.10 seconds." (Michael Arth)Web Results 1 - 10 of about 28,400. Search took 0.29 seconds.

Anyway, my point is that Arth is at least somewhat notable. I reduced the size of the bio to reflect his somewhat notable status. For that reason, I say DO NOT DELETE! 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G, the Google test IS listed as an "alternative test" for inclusion as a biography. I agree it should not be the only test. So, in addition to passing the alternative test (as has been demonstrated above) Arth has these points in favor of inclusion:

1. At least 30 articles written about him that can be read online

2. Coffee table art book, Introspective 1972-1982 published in 1983, and still available online. This book has an impressive amount of work, but doesn't even mention that he was also a rock concert poster artist for a while in the early 70s (the t-shirt connection cited above by Metros232 above was actually a link to Michael Arth's poster art, not another Michael Arth)

3. Hundreds of thousands of art prints sold during the time he was a fine artist 1970s and 1980s.

4. Designer and builder of the well-known 7 story "Casa de Lila" (1993) in the Hollywood Hills, and a number of other LA area residences.

5. Founder of New Pedestrianism, a variant of New Urbanism

6. Writer of many articles and the text of Introspective

7. subject of two documentaries currently in production: The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems, and another one about building a new town in Kenya being produced by Canadian mutual funds expert Duff Young.

8. He rebuilt 30 slum homes and businesses in DeLand, Florida and received various awards for that. He's got another 92 homes and businesses in development in the Garden District. After he ran out the drug dealers he renamed "Crack Town" The Garden District. 19:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've tried to clean up this article somewhat. With the original author's updates, it really is looking much better. The section on "The Garden District" needs really pared down per WP:ADS, but I think the article is a keeper now. Would like some other opinions.--Satori Son 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Recommendations will be followed

This article will be rewritten and expanded. Suggestion at New Pedestrianism will be taken also--to merge material at New Pedestrianism with both Michael E. Arth and New Urbanism. 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndunn (talk • contribs)

CORRECTIONS COMPLETE. KEEP ARTICLE. 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndunn (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitnews

Prod and speedy delete were removed by author (yet again). Non-notable web forum. Wildthing61476 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wanting to delete my atical?(unitnews)

  • Delete - I'm Pesticide Jalopy one of the moderators mentioned in the artice. I'd just like the wikipedia community to know that to my knowledged this article has *NOT* been written by either the site owner or any of the site contributors. The information contained inside it is woefully inaccurate and i encourage you to delete it. (addition - i've removed all of the factualy incorrect information)
  • Delete per nom. -Tapir Terrific 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site owner has made a post on the disscusion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unitnews stating he didn't create the page and encouraging it's deletion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignite Group

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Cube

Sorry, but this is pure original research. Google search for "Logical cube" antipattern produces 0 hits [46]. I'll change my vote to keep if any cites for this antipattern in the relevant literature can be produced.--EngineerScotty 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture Broker

Dictionary definitions of two ordinary words, with adlink to website of "Wholesale Furniture Brokers". NawlinWiki 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlachophile

This article will always be either just a trivial dicdef (of a term whose meaning is entirely transparent from its component parts), or an OR- and POV-dumpfest. I don't see how this should ever be expandable to a real encyclopedic article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can say the same about Hellenophile, Anglophile, Germanophile, Francophile, Scandophile, etc. All of what you say is Greek POV. You can make up very nice words and expresions, like "trivial dicdef" and "entirely transparent from its component parts", and try to "spell" people, but unless you give proper (which comply to Wikipedia rules) reasons as for this article should be deleted, it stays. 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • borderline notability. some 50 google hits. redirect to Vlachs until evidence for the term's notability is cited. this ("Pouqeville: A 19th century Vlachophile Frenchmen") may be evidence that the term is in use, but note the domain name "vlachophiles.net", indicating that it may just be idiosyncratic coinage. dab (ᛏ) 20:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's not so much a matter of whether the term exists, that would still make it just a dicdef. Sure, I'm a Vlachophile myself, a card-carrying one at that, so hey, I've just used the term, hence it exists. The question is whether all these hypothetical individual instances of Vlachophilia together form a total of a notable social-political phenomenon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think Hellenophile should redirect to Philhellenes. --Tēlex 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and Philhellenism is just such a real social/historical phenomenon. Something an encyclopedia article can actually say something about: where was it common, when, among whom, what causes and consequences did it have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever decision is made, I expect no double measures for the articles Scandophile, Germanophile, Francophile, etc. 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Keep 'em all or delete 'em all.--Tēlex 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not at all! We've just established that Hellenophilia (Philhellenism) was a notable phenomenon. There can be a full article treating its (and the term's) history etc.; the only question here is, does the term "Vlachophile" have comparable notability. In my vote above, I say that I think this unlikely. "Keep 'em all or delete 'em all" is a horrible approach. Shall we delete Hellenophile because there is no such word as Togophile or Khakasophile? The only thing that counts is, does the term and/or concept have encyclopedic notability. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And who is the one to judge that? Who is the one to judge that the Khakas are not as "worthy" as the Greeks? Or how about Scandophiles??? Should we make their opinion a un-noticeable "pecularity"? Are ideas no longer founded on the dignity of the one`s views, but subject to the will of the stronger part? Are Google hits the way to count how much something matters or not? greier 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability does (the term's notability, not the group's "worthiness"). sheesh, have we still got no further, on AfD? dab (ᛏ) 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the ones Greier pointed out. Comparing Philhellenism with Scandophilism (?) is like comparing Anti-Semitism to Anti-Romanianism. The former exists, the latter exists only in the minds of delusional nationalists. The former deserves an article, the latter doesn't. --Tēlex 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
any philia ("philism") exists in minds, deluded or not. Are you saying Scandophilia wasn't real? It was a notable movement in 19th century Britain, I don't understand how you can say it "doesn't exist". If anyone can show that "Vlachophilia" was a notable movement anywhere, at any time, I'll be all for keeping the article. dab (ᛏ) 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whtether those hypothetical individual instances of Scandophilia together formed a total of a notable social-political phenomenon, to quote FutPerf, is POV. Plus that Google backs that [47]. 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict - to dab): Well Vlachophilia gets more than twice the number of Google hits than Scandophilia (back to the basics). Philhellenism was a significant political movement; can the same be said for Vlachophilia? I don't know enough about Scandophilia to comment, except that it scores low on Google. I see no problem in keeping them all - the main problem with the Vlachophile article is the edit warring is causes (and will cause more if it's anything like the article on the Aromanians it is in reference to). --Tēlex 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(to Dbachman) And are you implying that my philia, may that be vlacho- or pedo- is a delusion? 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
what is going on? this isn't the AfD for Scandophile. If you put that on AfD, I will happily produce evidence that the concept is indeed notable. Although I might suggest the entry be merged with Viking revival. Note that there are other synonyms, like Septentrionalism. We are here to discuss the notability of Vlachophilia, and the burden to show that the term is notable lies with the people who want to keep the title separate from Vlachs. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sufficient proof of notability? It gets one hit in Google Scholar. I wasn't however able to find any hits for Scandophile or derivatives. --Tēlex 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hm, this is proof that it's a word, meaning it can safely be moved to wiktionary. I suppose the article could at least be a "List of Vlachophiles", but I see no reason not to redirect unless we get evidence that this was some sort of movement that can be pinpointed in space and time. Thus, redirect, either to Vlachs, or to List of Vlachophiles if such a (sourced) list is compiled. Note that I also tagged Scandophile for merging, on the same grounds. Imho, this isn't a case for AfD at all, but a case for using {{merge}}. dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Load

This article contains barely no information about the topic except a link to a company's website. Same for the Chinese version, and it was listed to vote for deletion as well. -- Tomchiukc 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Neutral. Dicdef at the moment, and no real potential for expansion, other than along the lines of "Electronic loads are also made by Agilent, Sorensen, Kikusui, etc etc etc...". Tevildo 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think the article could possibly be expanded (discussion of how loads are precisely simulated, etc.) It'll never be a front page candidate, but there's room for something here. - Richfife 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a special topic that requires certain expertise knowledge, or somebody who came across to related webpages can amend the contents to a reasonable amount to keep the article? -- Tomchiukc 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the topic itself doesn't require more than a basic knowledge of electronics to explain - [48] is a good introductory article. I'd offer to do it myself, but it will need diagrams that I'm not, at the moment, in a position to draw... Tevildo 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Meets speedy criteria as empty. Vegaswikian 08:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the spammy link to a single compay -- there should either be links to several companies or none at all. It's apparantly a real electronic device and a real non-neologism or company-specific term. I got 237,000 Goggle hits for the string "Electronic load", granted that the hits probably cover a plethora of usages (but Electronic load as described in the article leads, with the first few results at least). It's very short, but not empty, and certainly expandable. I think the removal of the linkspam makes it OK. Herostratus 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk • 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Allen Wilson

Article was speedied the first time, put I think this may warrent a discussion. Reason for first speedy delete was A7 Travelbird 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sounds like a local news story, but not a major event worthy of an article here. I certainly don't recall any national coverage. (Don't want to sound insensitive, but a guy who witnesses the police having a shootout and decides to join in seems like a Darwin Award). -- Fan-1967 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Article has merit, because Mark Allen Wilson, in life and in his death, was extremely unusual. He entered into a raging gun battle and arguably saved the lives of several people, at the cost of his own. Mark Wilson did so, not as a professional rescuer or policeman, but as a concerned citizen acting in his own private capacity to help others. Because he was an American and lived in one of the many American states that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons, he could do so with a handgun. A further edited and expanded article of the incident and Mark Wilson's actions through a neutral examination of facts has a value to all view points in the hotly contested debates involving violence in our society, the ownership of firearms and their ethical use as a means of self defense or in defense of others. While the facts of the incident might led some to think Mark Wilson was a fool to intrude into a police incident, my personal feeling is that the Vikings would have immortalized Mark in song and saga, in a modern world he at least deserves a mention in Wikipedia. --Brian H 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (moved from talk page)
  • Keep - Even though I'm in favor of gun control, it seems like this incident might be a valuable element of the debate over gun ownership. I think it should remain for that reason. - Richfife 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This event was significant enough that the Texas House of Representatives passed a resolution of commendation, No. 740, to commend Mark Wilson for what he did. He did not "join in a police shootout." The few police on the scene were pinned down in the courthouse and unable to provide any assistance to Arroyo's victims. "Fan" should research this incident more carefully before pontificating, and I would say insulting the deceased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.96.206 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Neil

no google hits. There seems to be a model called Terry Neal, no idea if this is the same person as article is unsourced Travelbird 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:BALLS. I'll be here all night. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurn Ball

Delete. I found no Google hits for anything in the article. Maybe it's a local legend, but if so, it's very local, and doesn't seem to be notable. Tapir Terrific 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Difference Between Martyrdom And Suicide Is Press Coverage

Unnotable single by Panic! at the Disco. Song was radio only single (no CD, vinyl or special digital download releases), doesn't even have a music video. Article includes no information not already supplied by A Fever You Can't Sweat Out (album article). Should be deleted. HarryCane 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - article seems to have content, and it is from a notable band. The JPStalk to me 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being released without a physical single is not uncommon. And it actually did get released as a digital download, perhaps not a special one, but then, none of the tracks on this particular album were released as "special" downloads. Keep as top ten single (U.S. Modern Rock) by reasonably notable artist. GassyGuy 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exactly my point. None of the singles from this band are specially notable. As far as I'm informed, the song wasn't even released as a single digital download, just as part of the album. The other singles at least have CD/vinyl releases and music videos to "flesh out" the articles. This one, however, is complete. There is no more information that can be given on this song/single (except for maybe on what compilation albums it was released, but that's nothing to go in an encyclopedia). And charting top 5 in the Modern Rock charts is not that strong of a criteria to justify this weak article. --HarryCane 11:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep songs that chart. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you may never now if it will become a hit or something. --Cory pratt 10:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any singles --Demon Hog 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It charted, it did something, it was a single. Totally notable. --*kate speak 08:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a Top 5-charting single on a major singles chart. There could be more info in the article, but I would encourage you to add more to it rather than try to delete an article that others could certainly add to and make Wikipedia better. 70.185.165.183 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You see, currently, there is nothing more to add to the article. And it's a fallacy that every top 10 single on a major singles chart needs to have an article. It's a criteria for it to be allowed to have an article. Major difference. I'm just saying that this article is very superfluous, as it consists of random facts copied from the other two articles I mentioned, and it will never make it past stub-stadium. --HarryCane 10:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article only around for 1 1/2 month. Give it a chance to develop. This band does not seem to have devoted wiki fans filling in gaps like other bands, but that does not un-include this song from Modern Rock chart Hackajar 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete - nn bio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Picache

Procedural nomination. The article was prodded, the prod was removed without explanation by an anon, and then the prod tag restored out-of-process. Brought here for discussion. No opinion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Chaser T 07:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada

This seemingly formal article on Canadian politics starts to get strange in the 3rd paragraph: Or because he grabbed a woman's ass at a political function showing him to be the mysoginist dinosaur that he is. Who can tell? Not me and in next paragraph: Turner's habit of slapping female asses. Then the last paragraph:It is important to note the ass-grab incident involved Liberal Party President Iona Campagnolo, who slapped Turner's ass right back. This reciprocity agreement between them did not prevent uppity feminists from causing a stink over what they saw as condescension, but what was clearly a deferential, dog-like show a respect among equals. Indeed, the connection between Iona Campagnolo's ass, John Turner's hand, and the MacDonald Commission will continue to fascinate Canadians for as long as asses, hands and commissions exist. KarenAnn 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete - nn, cv. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Filcin Kirk

I came across this article in the needs to be wikified section. It appears to have been written by some individual that posts on several gaming forums. I assume this "biography" is for his/her screen name (see http://www.forumplanet.com/planetelderscrolls/user.asp?gid=9441081&mid=2180757 for details). Seems like it's ripe for deletion. Konczewski 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - keeping this article in limbo for a merge is only viable if there is anything to merge. PresN (despite arguing for merge) asserts that there is nothing to merge, Mangojuice argues that merging is unnecessary on this basis, and no-one is really taking issue with that (despite this AfD hanging around a very long time). Anyone can create a redirect if they want. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Tribal Revolution

Neologism, recently invented in one guy's book. Cheese Sandwich 16:46, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 11 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PUMBA

I cleaned up this article as best I could, but I wonder if it's worth having an article on. It's an acronym for the business school of University of Pune. The department doesn't have its own article, so I don't think an acronym article should occur before that. And I also don't think that this department is notable enough to stand alone as an article like this. Metros232 19:52, 11 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The critter family

This article is about a range of clockwork toys that do not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Whilst the manufacturer has received some press coverage (see press link), none of it seems to cover this range RicDod 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I actually have one of these gadgets (the Bonga) in my office, and I found a few places that sell them[49][50][51]. But it doesn't look like they are called the Critter Family product line: the first one introduced was called Critter, but each subsequent one has its own unique name. On the Kikkerland website, they are called Windups. I would support Merge with an article on Kikkerland Design, but there isn't one, and I'm not sure if it passes WP:CORP. --Satori Son 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CSD-G7 speedy delete. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-dvds

Ignoring the legality of the site and local shop in question, this article fails to assert any notability for the company, which itself fails WP:CORP.➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion of this page. It is stub article and needs expanding, not deleting. Regarding the legality of it, as far as i no it is perfectly legal. Dean randall 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid you're mistaken, or have been misled by internet copyright fairytales (like that old "it's legal if you delete within 24 hours" chestnut). In the UK it is illegal to make backups of games for personal use even if you own the original, without written consent from the copyright holder (http://www.elspa.com/?l=faq&cat=21). The "legal backup" clause is a relic from the days of unreliable floppy disks and cassette tapes, and no longer applies. And while it's not, strictly speaking, illegal to make a back up of a DVD, breaking the copy protection to do so is (http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/8/13). Even putting those matters aside, profiting from the sale of copyrighted material most certainly is illegal, and far, far more likely to get you in serious trouble than your average joe copying his CDs to put in the car stereo. But I digress; the AfD debate is over notability, not legality. ~ Matticus78 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed comment regarding the legality of copied Dvd's. When i wrote the article i was under the impression it was legal (as stated on their website). There website is not running anymore and they are not accpeting anymore orders so i can only assume they have closed down. Delete the article now as it is based on a non-existant company Dean randall 19:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Geister

Was tagged for prod as a non-notable biography when it was just about the first entry. But now it's been created as a disambiguation page for three non-notable biographies (none of which with articles). Metros232 19:05, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Crockett

nn wrestling cameraman, only claim of noteability is relations to promoters Burgwerworldz 20:01, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Home

This webcomic article provides no evidence for notability (that meets WP:WEB or otherwise). Google turns up only 31 results for "This is Home" webcomic that aren't Wikipedia-related, only about 3 of which are actually related to the webcomic, so it seems highly unlikely that it is notable. In addition, the webcomic in question has apparently been both dead and unavailable since before the Wikipedia article was created a year ago.

It may or may not be worth merging some of the article contents into either K. Sandra Fuhr (author) or Boy Meets Boy (comic) (a newer webcomic by the same author, apparently based loosely on this one). As the article is essentially a stub, this shouldn't be too difficult. The most likely reason to do this would be so that the articles for her newer webcomics (particularly Boy Meets Boy) can reference the information where necessary. makomk 20:40, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because this is already in Comixpedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to Monkey (TV series). --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Monkey

This disambiguation page has 2 entries, neither of which point to articles. Nothing links there, or to the redirect page New monkey. Joyous! | Talk 22:29, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monkey (TV series) per Tevildo. The New Monkey TV show does in fact exist. I t just doesn't have its own page just a mention in Monkey (TV series) since it was a remake.--Nick Y. 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The issue with the TV series was sorted out earlier. This AfD is now just about the nightclub. I personally don't think it's notable, and that the (main) TV series is the right place for "New Monkey" to go to. However, if anyone thinks the nightclub _is_ notable, they should opine "Keep" here. Tevildo 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie (actress)

Was prodded anon editor removed prod without leaving edit summary or discussion.Nn notatable pornagraphic actor, no imdb, no awards, has not been the main star in any pornographic films, failed Ghits (I have been informed pornographic links are not to be added), fails WP:PORN BIO guidelines John Lake 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Here is the imdb link under the title name Cherie [54] and is also reposted content just discovered [55]--John Lake 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of examples of political correctness

Completely original research and mostly unverifiable Lbbzman 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comanix

According to the author, this is a Coding Orientated Content Management Visual Control System that is being developed on Wikipedia. The company website is Wikipedia. This system does not exist as yet. Isn't there some rule about Wikipedia not being a crystal ball? And also some rule that Wikipedia is not to be used for personal projects? And such ? KarenAnn 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Player

Reads as advertisement for an MP3 player that is no more noteworthy than the hundreds of others on the market. Created by single-use account also named User:Miniplayer. Was deprodded without comment, so listing for standard procedural AfD. ~ Matticus78 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree, this player rocks! I have one and was just looking for further information. So what the guys name is miniplayer. Would it be better if I resubmitted the article using my name "Darth Vadar"? You guys need to keep current with relevant facts.

To pull this product would be a dis-service to who will soon own it. Stop playing God and let this live.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.103.177 (talk • contribs)

Well, the username of the article creator isn't that big of a deal, it's the content of the article that is objectionable. It currently violates WP:SPAM and has no claim of notability that meets the criteria for products and services outlined in WP:CORP. -- Scientizzle 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bob Roberts, Jr.

Article about a pastor that asserts no notability. I originally prodded this article, but it was removed by the article Creator --Bill (who is cool!) 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of notability. Probably not in an area you're close to, but google this guy and you'll see a zillion blogs and reviews of what he's doing. It's big stuff in the church world since he's get a new way of thinking about church and getting people out of the pew and doing some good. --Gritsranch 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A google search of "Dr. Bob Roberts, Jr" produces 3 websites. No notability. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only assertion of notability is for his coinage of the frankly nauseating neologism "glocal", for which he will answer on the Last Day, and which, at present, the article seems to be entirely about. If kept, will need renaming to Bob Roberts, Jr (no Dr, no periods), IAW the style guide. Tevildo 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up Meets the published author test of WP:BIO. Plenty of reviews as you wade through the google web search results for Bob + Roberts + glocal. As of July 8, 2006, one of his books was in the top 20 selling books at http://www.christianbook.com/. [56] CBD is one of, it not the, largest distributors of Christian books in the U.S., so are a very good guage for importance in Christian publishing. Amazon.com rank of about 350,000 is reasonable. Book published by Zondervan, second forthcoming from them. Zondervan is a respected Christian press, not a vanity press. The article does need wikification. GRBerry 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hoy

Was tagged for CSD-A7 speedy delete. Interesting story and person was mentioned in two contemporary newspapers (hence de-speedy and sending here) but I'm pretty sure he was just one of millions in the same situation and nothing stands out to me to make him notable and encyclopedic.➨ ЯEDVERS 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - see if I get pilloried for this? All the keeps were socks or the author.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossthepond

Prod removed by IP user, listed for deletion as a non-notable radio show/podcast - Wildthing61476 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the comment below about Battle. Sorry, I didn't know how to sign it...Still think the show is what you call notable.Bodega 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article useful, as I've been a fan of the band Battle, who are on wikipedia, and was able to find the show through them. The show is notable, as it has bands who you deem worthy enough to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.245.162 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The author of the above unsigned post was also the person who removed the prod tag from the article. Wildthing61476 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. The fact that the show plays bands that are notable does not make it notable. I could make a web radio show and play notable bands, but that wouldn't make that notable either. --PresN 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found this show a really useful source of information and think that its non for profit ethos and outlook are very in tune with wikipedia. I found the show through following a link with the pipettes that I found on here. Weird you should delete this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.58.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Opinions given by anonymous IP address editors and unsigned comments are discounted when admins come to close AfDs.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is notable if a radio/online show has interviews with bands that listeners think are notable, that cannot be heard elsewhere. Also as this is an online radio show it provides access to a the music scene in a particular place that is then available to people elsewhere. A fine source of information, the spread of which is the aim, no?Thomasmuirhead 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bands trying to promote their work routinely give interviews to anyone and everyone, whether they've heard of them or not. Doesn't make the interviewers notable, and I can find nothing to indicate this show is. Fan-1967 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What does make something notable? If notable bands want to go in, sit down, chat to them, record live acoustic sets, I think that makes it notable, at least to those who want info about the bands they play. Imsuth 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Note: First and only edit from new editor[reply]
  • Keep This deletion made me curious. I have just read What_Wikipedia_is_not and don’t really see why this is being deleted? Isn’t the main thing about Wikipedia the fact that it is not a paper encyclopaedia…and that it doesn’t have to limit its content because of constraints as to ‘importance’. There are many who would suggest that ‘scunthorpe’ isn’t notable but that’s included because it exists, and I know Paris Hilton isn’t notable well not for words anyway more pictures and she’s in. This radio show exists, so it should be included.Dt edin 16:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Note: First and only edit from new editor[reply]
  • KEEPThe constraints of an online encyclopedia are boundless, why limit what material is shown. Surely the more information is shared the more we can develop as a society. Keep this page.Spain1980 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Note: First and only edit from new editor
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 62nd Street explosion

There is no doubt this article was created at the time when the cause of fire was unknown (and some suspected terrorism). But now, the cause of the explosion is, for the most part, known; it was a simple gas explosion (perhaps caused by suicide attempt). So now what makes this gas fire more noteworthy than others? The fact that it occured in New York City? Fires happen in New York City and other cities around the world all the time. Ten years from now, few are going to care about this fire; even ten days from now, few are going to care about this fire. And so, this is just a news event, not an encyclopedic topic. joturner 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xadier Gonzalez

Obvious vanity page. Fails notability test as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion)." (taken from WP:CSD, 1.2 Articles) RFerreira 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VoleWare

Non-notable term that fails the WP:NEO criteria. Only 558 Google results [58].--TBCTaLk?!? 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There already is a category at Category:Lists of foods. If that isn't fully populated and someone wants to do that, leave me a message and I will restore this list into your userspace for that purpose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of food lists

A list of lists? Do we need this unnecessary listcruft? Wildthing61476 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blades of Aason

Prod by another user, contested. Serious notability concern, only 32 Ghits. Luna Santin 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 result. Nomination is invalid - this article is about an album, not an artist, and I'm surprised that not one but two editors managed to misread a) the word "album" in the text, b) the album infoxbox including a generic image of a CD case and c) the tracklisting. Given the low participation I cannot delete an article on the basis of an AfD where neither participant seems to have read the article, nor does it seem a good idea to relist a faulty nomination. If desired then the article on the artist (O.S.T.R.) should be nominated, and the album article grouped with it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masz to jak w banku

Non-notable artist, pro was removed by author Wildthing61476 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Snake

Possible hoax article with hyperbole and statements like "composed primarily of egg (preferably from a chicken)". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: I don't know why, but for some reason, the statement I cited above sounded ridiculous to me when I first saw it. I now feel I was unjust with the "statements" remark. Furthermore, Charlieandeddie has put some effort into verifying the article's validity on my talk page, and if he/they can produce some verification of its existence, I will be happy to request that this discussion be closed. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With cleanup this is a possible candidate to be transwikied to Wikicookbooks. Yanksox 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STATEMENT: The tradition of the Egg snake has been enjoyed and continued on many establishments on the west coast, including, but not limited to, the South Western Coast of British Columbia. The page Egg Snake is an over-due attempt to bring light to this lesser-known West Coast marine history. Many coastal American establishments from Northern California and Oregon, including my own, still serve the traditional Egg Snake on the menu. The area's thriving most from Egg Snake popularity again seem to be located on the South Western Coast of British Columbia.

    The Egg Snake is very much so a real and current standing piece of West Coast heritage. Although not well known, it is my intent through this page to educate marine history enthusiasts to some of the finer points of history on the West Coast. Noting that it is in-fact a relatively unknown piece of history, I failed to realize that Google is a reliable generator of credible sources and in the duty of determining fact from fiction. If this were the case, my very own restaurant from which I work daily (which has Egg Snake on the menu), would not exist according to Google.

    My Goal is simple: To educate marine history enthusiasts to some of the finer points of history on the West Coast. I wish to know what verification is needed in order for the page Egg Snake to stand. (Charlieandeddie 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. No sources. I doubt the historical tale, as very few 18th century merchant sailors could afford George Foreman grills. (also, IIRC, there were supply problems of the advanced George Foreman models on the West Coast from 1790.) -- GWO 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax/something made up in a quiet moment during job as short order cook No sources and as per GWO. And according to the Ichthyosaur article, a full fossil of that dinosaur was not discovered until 1811 and it was not given that name until 1840. And it seems a strange term for ordinary sailors to be familiar with and to like enough to use as a name for a recipe. Bwithh 23:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My above delete opinion was blanked by Charlieandeddie. Charlieandeddie, please do not disrupt this discussion process, or you will be subject to administrative action Bwithh 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement As it seems we are both concerned for the preservation of the discussion process, perhaps I should advise you that your comments regarding the page egg snake are themselves presumptious, accusations, and harrasment. It is outside of the boundries of this discussion as to YOUR opinion of how this page was created, and insulting to assume what my occupation is or that I have "no life". I removed your comment for these reasons, as you yourself obviously did not realize this. Please feel free to critisize this page and its content, but please leave any personal feelings or opinions aside, as they contaminate the discussion process. Having said that, I would like to state that one of the sources for your earlier comment was cited from pamplet distributed by a rural establishment for the means of promoting their zest for marine tradition. thank you (Charlieandeddie 04:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Riiiiight. You're really going to push through this afd with blustering and pretend outrage. It's absolutely in the bounds of this discussion to have opinions about how this article was created.(And there's nothing wrong with being a short order cook - are you saying they all have no lives?. In Vegas, for instance, its a highly sought after, skilled and not badly paid profession.) Bwithh 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though you do not have anything usefull to add to this afd except empty comentary. This page was created on a computer, and that should be satisfactory as to how this article was created. Once again I am stating that this article is not a hoax, and is a page identifying marine heritage. I would ask you to once again re-read what has been written, as other users have also commented on how you have failed to understand what is posted. Also, your open ended babbling has become tiresome, please refrain from it in the future, and let's remeber the purpose of this afd. Once again, thank you for your interest in marine history and the egg snake, and I hope this hasn't discouraged you from enjoying the educational information posted. (Charlieandeddie 06:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Read the whole paragraph. In response to the previous comment. You probably should have read the whole article before cracking off wise comments. The author clearly stated that the early egg snakes were molded from oriental cookware, not George Foreman grills. The modern version of the egg snake is molded using George Foreman grills or griddles with grease canals around the edges, not even necessarily George Foreman grills. I've been to many small diners on the coast of BC and enjoyed this breakfast food on many occasions. If anyone needs proof of their existence visit the area and enjoy one for yourself instead of poking holes in the poor author's article. Until now, I didn't know the full history of the egg snake (besides their naval affiliation). I found this article very educational. Once I saw it was considered for deletion, I had to make an account and side with the author.
  • Ichthyosaurs The actual date that the full fossil was discovered is irrealevant; the name Ichthyosaurs is of Greek origin for the designation of fish lizard. regardless of the popularity of the actual animal fossil itself discovered in 1840, I'm willing to bet that the greek language would have remaind the same. And honestly, an egg snake looks nothing like the actual beast, indicating that it was merely a name and not a resemblance responsible for the term Ichthyosaurs. (Charlieandeddie 06:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax article, violation of WP:NOT. Storm05 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Breakfast Last summer when I was on a cruise to Alaska, my cruise had an evening stop over in the quaint little city of Victoria. The following morning wanting to sample canadian culture I had breakfast in a local diner on a quiet corner. For breakfast I ate a local favourite called the egg snake. This was one of the most delicious dishes I had during the entire cruise. After returning to my home in Cheyenne I searched everywhere for this meal, unfortunately I was unable to find it. I am glad that a local has published this meal, and hope that he may add a recipe, so others may try this fantasic dish. Anyone who says this article is a hoax should try to leave their computer for more then 5 minutes and live a real life. Dotheymakeboth 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, But I was both surprised and dismayed to find this article on the "Articles for Deletion" page. Although the the cooking and preparation of Egg Snakes has dipped into one of their frequent bouts of obscurity, as has occurred throughout their history, an entry on this sub-regional cuisine is long overdue. It is true, the egg snake is not widely known outside of the southern Gulf Islands of Canada. However, I am well acquainted with them. Though I currently reside in my Ontario hometown, I lived on Salt Spring Island from 1982 to 1994, and egg snakes were served at a couple of greasy diners in Ganges until at least the late 80s. In the mid-80s a close friend of mine, who also worked as a freelance reporter for the monthly Ganges newsletter, conducted some research into the egg snake's heritage and shared his detailed research with me.

Thus I feel some of the confusion over this entry on egg snakes is due to the less-than-steller writing of this article's authors. Certainly I am not aware of any connection to the USS Spitfire, nor the practice of calling egg snakes "Ichthyosaurs". I suspect that was more popular in selected villages of the Oregon coast, if at all. However egg snakes had spread from their obscure beginnings in the California merchant fleet to US Navy ships by 1850. My friend shared with me (briefly) the journals of one Lt. David "Jesus" Cooke, who sailed with Commodore Matthew Perry's expedition to open Japanese trade in 1852-53. Since Cooke had grown up with a pioneer family in coastal California, he was the only officer on the flagship who appreciated the egg snakes served by the stewards every Friday. Furthermore, once the expedition anchored near Edo (modern-day Tokyo), several Japanese traders were "inspired" by the administration to come over and offer the Americans generic trade quotes. In doing so, they recognized the smell and sight of the American egg snakes, and proceeded to trade ideas on egg snake cooking with the American stewards. This is the first known contact between Asian and American styles of egg snakes. Sadly, the journal of Lt. Cooke, held by a private collector in Miami, were lost when Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992.

Since then the styles of American and Asian egg snakes fused together during years of tentative American and Japanese trade until the Second World War, when local authorities in the Pacific Northwest suppressed the egg snake as an unpatriotic dish (an earlier version of freedom fries.) The Canadian Gulf Islands, however, remained fairly isolated from such influences, despite the anti-Japanese internment across the Strait of Georgia in Vancouver and beyond. Thus (my friend concluded) the Southern Gulf Islands became the last bastion of the egg snake on the West Coast, occasionally learned by transient residents (as we called everyone who lived there for less than 10 years) and spread across the country.

I hope this clears up some of the record, though I am sorry I could not provide any real sources. Suffice to say I have tasted it and I miss the egg snake very much! --Bewdley23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Out East I don't understand why this article is being considered for deletion. Egg snake is very popular in southern New Brunswick. My grandmother used to prepare egg snake for us using an iron wood stove. She had a new-fangled electric stove but preferred the wood stove. She continued cutting and fetching her own firewood until her late 70's when we had to resort to having her committed. She has dementia now and no longer prepares egg snake. Every once in awhile one of the family will bring egg snake in for her but it is not the same without the wood stove.
  • I recently visited Pender Island, BC (I stayed at the luxurious Poet's Cove Resort) and was surprised to find that egg snake was on the menu on the pool deck restaurant. You can actually order egg snake from the hot tub and it will be delivered to the swim-up bar. Sweet. It is not cooked on a wood stove but it is still OK. While in BC I learned that the Yag (sort of like a Sasquatch) is very partial to egg snakes so caution is to be exercised at all times. Yags don't usually go near pools or hottubs because their reflection in the water frightens them.
  • Anyway, only a crazy person would suggest that this article should be deleted. I recommend that you busy-bodies visit either southern New Brunswick or Poet's Cove before you snap to judgement. Let he who is without sin cast the first egg snake and egg snakes who live in glass houses should be cooked with wood stoves.
  • Delete as hoax and patent nonsense. Nearly every statement above (most of them, one notices, unsigned) in defense of this sad excuse for an article is a prime example of patent nonsense. ---Charles 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hill rants

Promotes a political website run by an individual of no notability KarenAnn 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 new users. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March Together For Life

Non-notable blog; getting trolled by the Onion, while stupid, does not establish notability, especially in the case of an Internet phenomenon. dcandeto 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While Fan-1967's right that it's not quite the same league as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, those figures need updating, the blog's over 100,000 hits in a single day. That said, I concur with Vought and 24.193.226.19. It's a very humorous cautionary tale -- and comment -- about information getting ahead of the facts on the Internet. We've got a confluence of satire, Internet rumor, lack of sourcing, rapid passing of the URL around the world, a soupcon of righteous zeal and the all-too-human fallacy of not knowing when to say "whoops, my bad." I think we can spare a page for this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slpva (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Don't delete, It's a part of internet history now... This is what Wikipedia is best at preserving. - skelm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.188.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to The Onion, seems like it would fit quite well in the section on The Onion taken seriously, and indeed already has a mention there. --Micpp 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now It's still getting a lot of attention, so we should at least keep it for now. This may be popular for weeks or months before it dies down. It should only be considered for deletion when nobody cares about it. If in a month this is receiving very little attention, then and only then should the article be deleted. Herorev 05:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above comments. Retain mention in the Onion's entry.—Wasabe3543 07:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete - like another user said, merge with internet phenomena; this will approach "all your base are belong to us" fame before long 65.102.139.43 08:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete - merge with Internet Phenomena --Yonmei 09:47 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, or at the very least merge with Internet Phenomena. Napalmtrees 172.191.130.62 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is already mentioned in The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously." What more do you people want? It's not like this site is really important or anything. If it is satire, it's not as good as Landover Baptist Church or Lark News. Yes, it's funny. I laughed for a good 10 minutes upon reading it and had to wipe the tea I was drinking off the monitor screen. But humorous content does not worthy of a Wikipedia article make.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.181.0 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Funny, but ... No-one will care in two months time. Coverage at The Onion suffices. -- GWO
  • Keep - this article meets all the guidelines for articles about notable websites. -- kjkrum
  • Keep, Keep, KEEP. This is culturally important. Acts of stupidity should be given the same exposure as acts of great intellect, etc. It has happened, it is a factual event and should be documented as such. It is an incredible example of both stupidity but also the power of the internet. As a piece of factually accurate, social history it is indespensible and to think of deleting it is a contrary to the encyclopedic remit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.251.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete, merge with Internet Phenomena. The news of these entries has spread fairly quickly and across a large number of blogs, at this point being something akin to an Internet car wreck that people are coming to see just for fun. --208.41.98.142 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It, but merged with other Internet phenomena. It's an object lesson in what happens when blog authors forget the basics such as checking sources. 69.156.120.144 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It for the reason of "If you can't be a good example, be a horrible warning." Lobinho77 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep It This event is a historically noteworthy example of how quickly information is disseminated via the blogosphere. Bretttido 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there is a specific, valid reason to delete it, I think it should stay. I've seen many entries that might be considered "not important" by some people. It's all subjective. Why delete this? I could imagine only Pete might want it deleted. Merriek 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep It, and add to other Internet phenomena. It is note worthy for several of the reasons noted above and meets the four criteria for worthyness. I don't see what "funny", or "nobody will care" have to do with it, those are just subjective takes on importance which all content is subject too. Who will care the Earth even existed in 10 Billion Years? Hard to say actually, which is why deleting should be a last resort. onNYTurf 16:27, 12 July 2006 (EST)
  • Comment I haven't decided either way yet, but I want to note that this story has made it to Salon.com SterlingNorth 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is mean and cowardly to ridicule a person for a harmless mistake, especially a sincere person, whether or not one agrees with that person's opinions. Besides, it isn't notable.Rich 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely notable for several reasons. 1) It is a great example of the peculiar power of blogs to spread information to a large number of people, 2) more generally, it is an example of how the internet has changed what information gets made public and how that information is dispersed, 3)it is a prime example of the importance of checking sources before making information and opinions public, 4) it is topical to the nature and reliability of information found on the internet, 5) it is an example of how controversial and divisive issues such as abortion are in this society (esp. the U.S.) . Comparing this to the Great Spaghetti Monster, if you look on the original keep/delete comments on that article, much the same argument of notability was discussed there as well. In additional, this topic keeps going thanks to articles such as the one found in Salon. I don't understand why people should be so inflexible about what should be considered "notable" in Wikipedia. This is not a traditional print encyclopedia with typical entries. One of the reasons I come here personally is to get the straight scoop on topical events that are difficult to find elsewhere on the net, I also very much appreciate Wikipedia's responsiveness to new information. Sure, this topic isn't earth-shattering news, OTOH I can probably find 100 articles in here in a few minutes that many would consider less notable than this, and there is no debate on the "importance" of those topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toktun (talk • contribs) (This is user's second edit.)
  • Weak Keep: Noteworthiness is rising due to coverage by Salon, as mentioned above. I would think, however, this might be better merged in with The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously". --Flewellyn 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a nice name, but sorry, I can't resist seeing it get deleted per WP:V. However, Google has 50,700 exact results... --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 new users. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March Together For Life

Non-notable blog; getting trolled by the Onion, while stupid, does not establish notability, especially in the case of an Internet phenomenon. dcandeto 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While Fan-1967's right that it's not quite the same league as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, those figures need updating, the blog's over 100,000 hits in a single day. That said, I concur with Vought and 24.193.226.19. It's a very humorous cautionary tale -- and comment -- about information getting ahead of the facts on the Internet. We've got a confluence of satire, Internet rumor, lack of sourcing, rapid passing of the URL around the world, a soupcon of righteous zeal and the all-too-human fallacy of not knowing when to say "whoops, my bad." I think we can spare a page for this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slpva (talk • contribs) (This is user's first edit.)
  • Don't delete, It's a part of internet history now... This is what Wikipedia is best at preserving. - skelm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.188.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to The Onion, seems like it would fit quite well in the section on The Onion taken seriously, and indeed already has a mention there. --Micpp 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now It's still getting a lot of attention, so we should at least keep it for now. This may be popular for weeks or months before it dies down. It should only be considered for deletion when nobody cares about it. If in a month this is receiving very little attention, then and only then should the article be deleted. Herorev 05:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above comments. Retain mention in the Onion's entry.—Wasabe3543 07:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete - like another user said, merge with internet phenomena; this will approach "all your base are belong to us" fame before long 65.102.139.43 08:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete - merge with Internet Phenomena --Yonmei 09:47 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, or at the very least merge with Internet Phenomena. Napalmtrees 172.191.130.62 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is already mentioned in The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously." What more do you people want? It's not like this site is really important or anything. If it is satire, it's not as good as Landover Baptist Church or Lark News. Yes, it's funny. I laughed for a good 10 minutes upon reading it and had to wipe the tea I was drinking off the monitor screen. But humorous content does not worthy of a Wikipedia article make.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.181.0 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Funny, but ... No-one will care in two months time. Coverage at The Onion suffices. -- GWO
  • Keep - this article meets all the guidelines for articles about notable websites. -- kjkrum
  • Keep, Keep, KEEP. This is culturally important. Acts of stupidity should be given the same exposure as acts of great intellect, etc. It has happened, it is a factual event and should be documented as such. It is an incredible example of both stupidity but also the power of the internet. As a piece of factually accurate, social history it is indespensible and to think of deleting it is a contrary to the encyclopedic remit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.251.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete, merge with Internet Phenomena. The news of these entries has spread fairly quickly and across a large number of blogs, at this point being something akin to an Internet car wreck that people are coming to see just for fun. --208.41.98.142 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It, but merged with other Internet phenomena. It's an object lesson in what happens when blog authors forget the basics such as checking sources. 69.156.120.144 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It for the reason of "If you can't be a good example, be a horrible warning." Lobinho77 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep It This event is a historically noteworthy example of how quickly information is disseminated via the blogosphere. Bretttido 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there is a specific, valid reason to delete it, I think it should stay. I've seen many entries that might be considered "not important" by some people. It's all subjective. Why delete this? I could imagine only Pete might want it deleted. Merriek 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep It, and add to other Internet phenomena. It is note worthy for several of the reasons noted above and meets the four criteria for worthyness. I don't see what "funny", or "nobody will care" have to do with it, those are just subjective takes on importance which all content is subject too. Who will care the Earth even existed in 10 Billion Years? Hard to say actually, which is why deleting should be a last resort. onNYTurf 16:27, 12 July 2006 (EST)
  • Comment I haven't decided either way yet, but I want to note that this story has made it to Salon.com SterlingNorth 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is mean and cowardly to ridicule a person for a harmless mistake, especially a sincere person, whether or not one agrees with that person's opinions. Besides, it isn't notable.Rich 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely notable for several reasons. 1) It is a great example of the peculiar power of blogs to spread information to a large number of people, 2) more generally, it is an example of how the internet has changed what information gets made public and how that information is dispersed, 3)it is a prime example of the importance of checking sources before making information and opinions public, 4) it is topical to the nature and reliability of information found on the internet, 5) it is an example of how controversial and divisive issues such as abortion are in this society (esp. the U.S.) . Comparing this to the Great Spaghetti Monster, if you look on the original keep/delete comments on that article, much the same argument of notability was discussed there as well. In additional, this topic keeps going thanks to articles such as the one found in Salon. I don't understand why people should be so inflexible about what should be considered "notable" in Wikipedia. This is not a traditional print encyclopedia with typical entries. One of the reasons I come here personally is to get the straight scoop on topical events that are difficult to find elsewhere on the net, I also very much appreciate Wikipedia's responsiveness to new information. Sure, this topic isn't earth-shattering news, OTOH I can probably find 100 articles in here in a few minutes that many would consider less notable than this, and there is no debate on the "importance" of those topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toktun (talk • contribs) (This is user's second edit.)
  • Weak Keep: Noteworthiness is rising due to coverage by Salon, as mentioned above. I would think, however, this might be better merged in with The Onion under "The Onion Taken Seriously". --Flewellyn 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a nice name, but sorry, I can't resist seeing it get deleted per WP:V. However, Google has 50,700 exact results... --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_11&oldid=63308075"