Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 27

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryulong (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 27 October 2006 (no). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 26 October 28 >

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G7 - original author (same numerical address) blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cityblock

This article reads like an advertisment. I proded it twice and the tag was twice removed. So now I put it here. Opinions? --Tone 07:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Stoughton, Massachusetts. --Ezeu 22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoughton Fire Department

Delete. It's a fire department with no particular notability. The article goes into great detail about the particulars of the organization but does not assert importance. Deprodded without comment. ... discospinster talk 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Model Warship Combat

WP:V - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Unnotable unaccredited "institute." I get 342 yahoo hits for "Carroll Theological Institute". This "institute" does not even have classrooms, and while its website in 2004 said it hopes to have accreditation one day, there is no independent accreditation group/board that mentions this. The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable. Arbusto 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I questioned the good faith of this AfD as soon as I saw it on my watchlist, and Arbusto did not disappoint, starting in with a baseless attack on those who voted to keep this article as "inclusionists", accompanied by the use of "scare quotes" to imply that there is something unseemly going on here. A thorough read through the published, verifiable, independently-sourced articles included in the article regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine. That a new school is not accredited by a national accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill, nor does the timeframe in obtaining such accreditation constitute any evidence of non-notability. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of every aspect required by WP:V. I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding those who voted to keep the article in the previous AfD to be yet another staggering violation of WP:AGF by Arbusto, and the bad faith shown in taking another stab at destroying this article so quickly to only add to the issues. Based on the sources provided, I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding the nomination. Alansohn 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two church sources (from 2003, 04) make it notable how? It doesn't even have a campus. Or approval to operate in the state, which is required by Texas law.[2] Arbusto 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You again are falsely characterizing the sources. These are independent, verifiable and reliable sources that describe the institution and its no programs, satisfying WP:V; they are not "church sources". I know of no Wikipedia standard that requires an educational institution to have a brick-and-mortar campus; apparently, in our computer age, schools have the ability to offer classes electronically over this thing called the "Internet". The article you provide is completely and entirely accurate, but entirely irrelevant to the article in question. You again try to falsely imply that the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is offering degrees in violation of Texas law, and provide a source that talks about some other school. What on earth do you have against this school? Alansohn 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the lack of notability of the topic does not mean an editor has something "against this school". Removal of a non-notable school article from the encyclopedia is not a judgement on the school itself, but only on the appropriateness of including an article on it in the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of official permission to operate is by no means a barrier to mention an entity in Wikipedia, or we could not mention any rebel group, any subversive movement, or any underground operation. We only note whether there is a reliable and verifiable source to show notability. We are not a state licensing and regulatory agency. Edison 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the "sources" include "Fort Worth Star-Telegram": Obituaries Oct 19, 2004 that says "Those desiring, please make memorial contributions in Dr. Drakeford's name to the BH Carroll Theological Institute", "Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The: Amen Corner Nov 22, 2003 Baptists in Texas plan to open the independent Carroll Theological Institute."
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is an obituary and the only reference to this "institute" where to donate money. Is that the best WP:V you have an obituary?
Do you have a source that this place is legally operating. Those articles mention that "Carroll Theological Institute" will be opened in 2004. Isn't it notable enough for press coverage since its been open? Arbusto 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto, do you even believe a fraction of the stuff you're writing? You pick the two least relevant sources included in the search to represent all of the other articles that directly mention the school and its programs, again deliberately misinterpreting the information provided to falsely push your agenda. Will you ever demonstrate the intellectual honesty necessary to address ALL of the information provided, and stop manufacturing requirements that you feel this article doesn't meet? Where is the criteria that specifies your made-up rules? Alansohn 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, ALL schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Show me where it says such a thing in Wikipedia policy. Anyone can start an unaccredited "school" and there's nothing notable about 99 percent of those who do. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An "unaccredited Christian Baptist institution" that "does not hold classes in any conventional sense" and only "teaches Baptist principles and practices" is not a school in any sense of the word. All churches and prayer groups teach their principles and practices, that doesn't mean they're schools just because they say they are. I could start thirty of these kinds of online "schools" sitting here at my computer this afternoon and be no more or less valid. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unaccredited school with no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JoshuaZ. Small pseudo-institute with no assertion of notability. Prolog 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in independent reliable sources allows us to write an article adhering to the policies WP:NPOV and WP:V. Contrary to the commentary above, one of these sources is from this year, not from earlier years. Getting accreditation is a multi-year process for a new school. See the section on accredidation here for where they are in the process. I assume the editor who claimed they could lauch lots of "equally valid" online schools in an afternoon is a college/university president, as this was founded by one fired as part of a theological (not academic) dispute. See [3]. GRBerry 15:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What independnent reliable sources? All we have are a few religious publications with obvious strong biases in the matter. JoshuaZ 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The Baptist publications are independent reliable sources. They are not by close affiliates of the institute. For those who don't follow Christian denominations, baptists are about as unorganized as something can be and still be worth having an organizational label for. Independent for discussing notability and for WP:INDY purposes means just independent of the particular organization/person/etc... under discussion. Religious POV newspapers are just as legitimate as "alternative" newspapers with a politically left POV (which we use as independent reliable sources on politically left topics). The Baptist Standard is a print newspaper/magazine that has been publishing since 1888, see [4]. The Associated Baptist Press is a news bureau based in Florida with offices in Washington D.C. and Texas, see [5]. GRBerry 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find the comment by JoshuaZ that the sources used are "religious publications with obvious strong biases" to be disturbing and confusing. What is their bias? Each of these sources are used to provide factual information, not to offer an opinion. Each source used is an independent entity that covers religion. The implication that these sources are invalid is false, if not patently offensive. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue here is notability. There are two sources tied to churches. That's all there is. Yes, accreditation is a multi year process; Are they a canidate? Can you verify they have applied for accreditation? All regional accreditators require a school have a library, this doesn't even have a campus. Arbusto 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only one of these points relevant to notability is that the false claim about the independent sources. The sources are not tied to churches. The publishers have near pseudo-denominational affiliations, which is very, very different. (Baptists aren't even really a single denomination; in the U.S. they were for about 50 years, but have been becoming more and more fragmented since they original association broke up due to the same tensions that led to the Civil War.) See the response above for more details about what the publishers are. There have been multiple published, independent reliable sources primarily about them, which is the foundational basis for almost all criteria for notability, and we have no consensus criteria for schools to assert a tighter standard. (The notion of tighter standard for schools is laugahable, given the general AFD discussion about schools.) A trivial google search also produces additional reliable sources. There are 34 articles in The Baptist Standard that refer to the school (natural, given that it covers Baptists in Texas) [6]. It has been covered by the North Carolina baptist newspaper, which isn't exactly local to the school, [7] (this also incidentally mentions a near 5,000 volume donation to the Institute's physical library plus a second smaller one, proving from an independent reliable source that the institute does have a library). GRBerry 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Coverage of specialized subjects is often in specialized publications. Particle physics developments are covered in specialized physics journals, and Baptist religion is covered in Baptist religious publications. We do not refuse to have articles about Quarks because only books and journals about particle physics, which are obviously biased toward tiny invisible no-see-ums, discuss them. Edison 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources fails WP:CORP which states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Moreover, you need accreditation in Texas to be a legitimate school. Please provide a WP:RS that this "school" is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board(a group that oversees higher education in Texas). Arbusto 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think that you are either not listening or severely biased. First, "multiple" means more than one. So even if there were only two, which has been false for the entire time this discussion was underway, multiple is met. But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute. Then I pointed out that one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute. Your arguments hold no water. Plus we have JJay's statement below that it was covered by the city paper, even though their archives aren't freely available to use it as a source. And not being accredited is not a reason for deletion; we have multiple categories for non-accredited schools. GRBerry 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to turn down the attitude and keep your personal observations about other editors to yourself. And as for the other sources, I don't think publications like the Baptist Standard or the Biblical Recorder count, because they violate, at least in spirit, WP:CORP's dictum that the source be "independent of the company or corporation itself". It's for this reason that we don't give as much weight to articles about Scientology that come from Scientologist news services. Lastly, I think the authors of WP:CORP meant "multiple" to be more than just two, because even a hot dog stand in Iowa can manage to get two puff-piece articles written about itself in some paper or other. wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the issues raised regarding WP:V, the publications listed in the article are independent and verifiable in full compliance with WP:V. The fact that they cover church-related news makes them no different from any other "industry" publication that neutrally covers a particular subject. Additionally, it was only a lack of effort that fails to turn up other sources. Google News Archive provided several additional references in such "partisan" publications as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, all of which should pass the WP:V test of even the most rabid deletionists. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP indicates that the school must be the subject of the articles, not just be "mentioned". Is the school specifically the subject of these articles? And are they actual articles per se, or are they blurbs on the "Religion" page of said papers? wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could always click on the link provided, and check for yourself. Sunject lines such as "Four leave Southwestern Baptist to join new seminary", "Baptist seminary may find itself at home in Arlington", "Texas Baptists to open independent institute" and "Theology education taken to churches" would all seem to be "about" B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, not just mere "mentions" as your scare quotes seem to fear. Though you (and all others who voted to delete) should click on the link and check the sources for yourself, and not take my word for it. The article has been updated with several of these sources, which have been included in the article with links to the references. Alansohn 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scare quotes? Um, no, they were quote quotes. I was quoting the editor above who stated "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." And a mention isn't good enough. Many of the articles you refer to came out before the school opened, and are apparently simply passing along what was received in the school's press release. This too, is dealt with in WP:CORP. Again, any hot dog stand in Iowa can accomplish same, but that doesn't make it notable. wikipediatrix 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First there are no sources. Then the sources are "biased" baecause they're church-related. Now the sources are indeed from widely-accepted news sources, but came out too soon, before the school opened. Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. I'd suggest spending more time rooting out Wikipedia's overflowing bounty of Iowa hot dog stand articles. Alansohn 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did quote me saying "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." You apparently didn't notice the immediately prior sentence (which you need to read to understand the quoted one, because the antecededent for "those" is in the prior sentence) that says "But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute." The bit about thirty-four is for people who don't think four is enough and are willing to look at the evidence that has been provided. I think four that meet every test in WP:CORP and WP:INDY is enough to defeat the claim about inadequate sourcing, so I'm not going to waste my time looking at the other thirty-two. If you feel that you need more in order to change your opinion, I point you back to the link I posted above so that you can go read all of them. GRBerry 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nn school. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fort Worth Star-Telegram covered the founding of the school with multiple articles. That's good enough for me. I also agree with Alansohn that the nom's attempts to stigmatize other users is clearly out of order. --JJay 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:CORP per GRBerry and JJay. Kappa 07:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously there exists a pretty substantial amount of verifiable information on this topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note to closing admin.: ALL some the keep votes are from school inclusionists that voted keep last time. Probably due to this afd being added to the school deletion watch list. That is even though it not being a university, college, public or primary educational that awards degrees or diplomas. Arbusto 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Note to closing administrator (using Arbusto's "logic"). The exact same individual who created this AfD is the same deletionist who created the original, failed AfD. As a particpant in the original AfD, by his own argument, he should be forbidden to participate in this AfD. Any and all of his comments, particularly his attacks against individuals who have voted to keep, should be ignored in their entirety. For that matter, shouldn't Arbusto have been forbidden from creating a second AfD? Can anyone (let alone Arbusto) show where Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive has a qualification that schools to be included must be "a university, college, public or primary educational that awards degrees or diplomas". Arbusto, please stop finding more excuses and start addressing the facts: Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. Stop attacking individuals and start addressing the facts that have been presented. Alansohn 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another False Statement I opined keep this time, and didn't particpate in the last AFD. Ditto for User:Librarianofages. Ditto for User:JJay. Ditto for User:Christopher Parham. Indeed, the only keep opiner to date that participated in the last AFD is User:Alansohn. In addition to being false, the prior comment is a failure to assume good faith. (It also reflects not understanding that AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and should be closed on the strength of the arguments, and repeatedly making deletion arguments that are obviously false does nothing for the strength of of ones other arguments.) As for me, the claim that I'm a school inclusionist is easily refuted; read User:GRBerry#Notability. The fourth bullet point is about schools, and this one looks like it will meet my permanent standards for introducing a new educational methodology to seminary education, not just my temporary keep standards. GRBerry 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right not all. However, this happened last afd when the school inclusionists astrotrufted this afd. Arbusto 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could both of you calm down please? Also, GRB as to the matter of introducing a new education methodology, the standard precedent for any other type of article (for example software) is that we only write articles after others have found the introduction of the new thing to be notable. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. JoshuaZ 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reminder; I'll try to calm down and focus more on my for pay job. I do think those outside the Institute are already starting to see the new methodology as notable, as evidenced by some of the articles linked in the article. But my keep opinion would stand even if that methodology never caught on elsewhere, because there is more than enough independent reliable coverage, some of it from outside the region, which meets my temporary standards. Also, does your prior opinion still stand given the enhanced sourcing the article now has (significantly expanded today)? GRBerry 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Some comments above violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA, by seeking to discredit the comments of other editors based on their supposed membership in a group of "inclusionists" or deletionists." Talk about the article, not the other editors. I have voted to delete the articles for far more schools and churches than I have voted to keep, but I voted to keep this article.Edison 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: Using the exact same standards, I could start my own unaccredited "online bible school" out of my living room, send out press releases and get friends in the media to write puff-piece articles about it (not to mention the inevitable articles from religious media), create my own Wikipedia article for it, and point to this AfD if anyone squawks about it. Surely this is not what was intended by WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead, and if you get the secular media in your city to report that you persuaded professors to leave another seminary to teach at yours, I'll be quite happy to opine that the article on yours should be kept. If you can't, there is a real difference in the basis for keeping this real Institute of higher education and your hypothesized online bible school. (That link goes to a source already linked in the article.) GRBerry 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does a professor leaving a seminary for this one make any difference regarding WP:CORP? wikipediatrix 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having independent reliable sources write articles primarily about it means that it is notable to the WP:CORP standard "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." This has been discussed extensively above.
In this particular use of the statement, it undercuts the argument that you could create an equivalent school out of your living room, and explains how the hypothetical AFD for your hypothetical school would not be equivalent. This is a real school, not a diploma mill. The evidence on this seems quite clear to me, even looking just at the sources already in the article, never mind the things I saw when I went looking for additional evidence. We have, between the article and this discussion, proof of staff that were college professors before they joined this Institute, a library in excess of 5,000 volumes, a founder that was formerly a college president, and multiple published articles in multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the Institute. GRBerry 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in your comments do I see an explanation of why this is "not a diploma mill". Saying it doesn't make it so. I see nothing in WP:CORP that says having college professors and college presidents associated with you makes up for its other shortcomings. (Tell me again, where exactly is this "library in excess of 5,000 volumes" if they don't have a brick-and-mortar building??) wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said the evidence was in the sources already in the article. But I'll copy it here for your covenience. To quote our article diploma mill "an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study, and without recognition by official accrediting bodies." (Emphasis added.) At the present they lack accreditation, as everyone knows - Wikipedia even sources the article to their statement that they aren't accredited. However, the other test for being a diploma mill is "awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study". A cursory glance at their admission requirements shows that they want students with the ability to do academic study. (This is most blatantly obvious for the advance studies program. "For admission each applicant must submit to the Committee of Senior Fellows for Advanced Studies a research paper either previously prepared (an ungraded copy) or prepared especially for the application on a subject in the student’s chosen major field of study. This paper should be 25-35 pages in length. The paper should represent the applicant’s best quality of research and writing. The form and style should follow the 6th edition of Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. The paper will be graded in terms of form, presentation, and content to determine whether the applicant is capable of doing research and writing at an advanced level." But it is visible in the admission requirements for all three levels of studies.) Since I went to a school where the typical course was 12 units of credit, I have trouble interpreting course units as used elsewhere, but I'm sure that 48 units in 24 courses for their lowest level or 78 units for one of the second level programs (PDF and PDF), plus a recommendation to take half as many courses per term as one would elsewhere (second to last paragraph), is not "very little or no academic study". See also second paragraph of their statement on accreditation, linked in the article.
I don't know where the physical library is; I'm not in the same part of the world as the Institute. I just know that we have reliable evidence that they have it. I'd guess it is in Arlington, Texas, given that they have a center there where the professors are. If you really care, drop them a line. GRBerry 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikipediatrix, if I understand correctly, you are acknowledging that the article does meet the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standards, but you are stubbornly insisting that the article be deleted because "Surely this is not what was intended by WP:CORP"?!?!?! Why are you concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario, and not addressing the arguments that have been presented for the article in question using the guidelines provided. If you feel that WP:CORP needs to be amended, go ahead and work to change it, but for now, it's the gold standard, and it has been met. Alansohn 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario", eh? Wow. Sorry, not taking the bait. wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No bait to be taken, especially when you can just grab a weiner at one of those mythical Iowa hot dog stands, avoiding the fish breath. Any response to the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standard issues? Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The standards for WP:CORP state that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself., all of which was met with the "church" sources and is more than met with the coverage added based on the items retrieved from the Google News archive. The WP:CORP standards were created knowing full well that any new and growing company will make efforts -- including hiring PR people, whose sole purpose is to obtain such coverage -- to get articles published in the media, the more the better. That these articles cover the subject in a neutral manner, describe teh school in the context of its "competitors" and within the current Baptist theological framework, meets the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard. That the school was covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area could be chalked up to local religious coverage that spits back the contents of a press release (I'm surprised this charge hasn't been made yet), but newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away) bespeak a newsworthiness that meets the WP:CORP standard, using sources that are inarguably valid per WP:V and WP:RS, which ergo, by definition fulfil the WP:N standard. Whether it's Iowa hot dog stands or basement diploma mills, those nonexistent hypothetical cases are irrelevant to the question posed in this AfD. Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So the question is whether articles from a few years ago published by The Baptist Standard, Biblical Recorder, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News are multiple non-trivial published works. I have to say it is a little misleading though because your Dallas Morning News, 5 November 2003 and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5 November 2003 are published on the same date on the same topic in the same region so I don't a point in attributing them (as they are in the article now) as different sources, but lets get some more opinions. If you could supply more concrete sources to prove notability for this unaccredited "school," prove it is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, or demonstrate fame in any way I'll withdraw this. Arbusto 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if you believe that all schools are notable (fortunately I do not) this institute wouldn't qualify. "The institution does not hold classes in any conventional sense. Rather it trains students in 15 “teaching churches” scattered across Texas, as well as through interactive lessons taught over the Internet" Its not a school, its a church afilliated organization and a non-notable one at this point. If they actually get accredited, bring the article back. But we aren't here to speculate on whether it will be accredited as an actual school. Oops, guess I put this in the wrong place the first time around Montco 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisted?!?! There wasn't enough discussion already?!?!?! We seem to be driving this off of WP:CORP, a standard that the article meets and that makes the issue of accreditation moot. If I recall from previous review of the relevant articles, THECB recognition can take two or more years, and B. H. Carroll Theological Institute can't pursue regional accreditation until it has the required state certification. Alansohn 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure relisting was a good idea(probably should have gotten closed as a no consensus). However the CORP matter is less than established. I'm not sure everyone is convinced this meets WP:CORP. In particular that these are actually non-trivial sources. Furthermore, if we lack sufficient sourcing to make an article that meets WP:V that's also a legitimate reason to delete, indeed one required by policy. JoshuaZ 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon! The school was not only covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, but was also listed in newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away). Which of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are you questioning in terms of WP:V? What more do you want to see? Alansohn 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a nominator relisting a discussion is almost always a bad idea. Relisting should be left to a closing admin who can decide whether more discussion increases the odds of having a clear consensus. Some participants at Deletion Review consider relisting by a partisan as reason to overturn a closure. GRBerry 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Your first edit on this page was an attack on me. Stop this. Arbusto 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight; In extremely poor faith, you open an AfD just weeks after your first attempt to delete this article failed. You write up an AfD that starts out stating that "The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable", attacking those (including myself) who made good faith arguments to retain the article and genuine efforts to improve this article. Please read your own explicit attacks in the nomination before accusing others of attacks. Alansohn 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Holy well-poisoning, Batman. Calm down, everyone. Yes, persistent school inclusionists are tiresome and yes this really isn't a school, but the issue is notability and verifiability, as JoshuaZ rightly points out (though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion). Let's look at the sources to see if they establish these. The "church sources" are articles in independent wire services or publications that appeal to Baptists; however, there is no apparent connection with the seminary itself. They are independent and seem credible to me. Also, this has been covered by major daily newspapers. The sources (and, since Uncle G doesn't seem to be participating in this discussion, let me be the one to point out that you have to actually read the sources) noted the controversy surrounding this organization: it was founded by four moderate Baptist professors forced out of another seminary when it was taken over by fundamentalists (who dispute the propriety of this college using the name of the other seminary's founder). The coverage in the mainstream and religious press generated by this controversy makes this subject notable. (I cannot believe my first edit after coming back from a longer-than-expected wikibreak is to keep a freaking school!) JChap2007 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to keep cool heads here. I was ready to vote delete right away on this one, but further research bears out. By the so-called "tests" this seems non notable on face value, but deeper digging DOES turn up multiple, independent coverage. The various "tests" we apply for notability are meant to get us LOOKING for notability, but they by themselves do not mean that something fails the primary notability criterion. There is multiple coverage, it is covered in a fairly extensive way, and by independant sources (I know it's "religious" press; but then again you look for music reviews in the music press, don't you???). Just because it fails a guideline doesn't mean it is AUTOMATICALLY not notable. It means we should check it out. When one checks it out, it passes. --Jayron32 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates that there are reliable sources for this see [8]. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an insignificant little school to me. Even if it were accredited-- I don't think it would be notable enough for WP. Nephron  T|C 04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, Capitalistroadster, and GRBerry. I could care less how many Yahoo hits you can or cannot find, this institution is easily notable enough for a project which endeavors to be the complete sum of all human knowledge. Silensor 05:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-sources are necessary to write about an already notable topic, but do not in themselves establish notability. Unaccredited diploma mills would rarely be of any note, and this one doesn't seem any exception. Seraphimblade 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As per my previous point about a hot dog stand in Iowa, just because something has press coverage sources they can point to still doesn't make something notable. My Uncle Ned has been in the newspaper many, many times - more so than this diploma mill - but he still isn't notable. wikipediatrix 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable, nicely referenced. Everyking 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. bbx 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It barely scrapes in. If it was accredited, i may remove the 'weak'. Qaanaaq 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and Jayron32. I looked at both debates and as they went on, those arguing for deletion just ignored more and more of the citations of independent verifiable sources. Renomination a mere month after the first discusson closed also looks very suspicious to me. Quendus 11:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong Delete. Absolutely no recent GNews Hits (so lack of recency and importance). The only article that links here is about the school's founder. Without accredidation, it's just simply not a school (any more than Catholic diaconate formation programs, which confer tons of knowledge -- and ultimately a ministry on students -- through a rigorous academic experience too). There are plenty of things that meet WP:V (which this does) (changed my mind, see below) that are still not notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Once the school is accredidated, recreate as needed. SkerHawx 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, there is no criteria whatsoever that requires a school to be "accreditated" to have an article, nor that articles have to be "recent" to be valid. As you acknowledge that WP:V is satisfied, and that the sources meet WP:RS, which part of WP:CORP is not met by this article? Alansohn 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First off, WP:CORP is a guideline, not the Bible, and not WP policy. There's a gut check about whether something is notable. 400 students? I can name thousands of high schools with more. Coverage in the Fort Worth paper? I can provide tens of thousands of articles if local news coverage is all it takes to be notable enough to be an entry in an encyclopedia. Per your comment, there's also no criteria that says that I can't use a lack of accredidation and any shred of recent coverage to help form my opinion as to whether this Institute matters beyond its own walls. Lack of accredidation means it's not a school that can confer degrees, which means that it's in essence a Bible Study group. Typically, notable organizations will have ongoing coverage or be historically significant. This fails both. And by the way, the Dallas News article cited is future-looking ("hopes to start classes", "will be based somewhere between Dallas and Fort Worth", etc. Both Ft. Worth newspaper articles focus on the four founders resigning their prior posts and joining this new project prior to the Institute ever teaching a class. No secular (i.e. "independent") news coverage exists after the Institute is founded, so I'm not sure that helps the article's case. SkerHawx 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think there is a false standard invoked here, that an article must be deleted if it has insufficient "recent GNews Hits" This is no Wikinews. Many birds, Kings, high schools, and State Highways have no recent GNews Hits either, but they somehow retain their articles. Edison 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response On what basis are you claiming that the 2006 article from the news bureuae Associated Baptist Press [9] is not independent. There is no link between the ABP and the Institute. This independent coverage has been a source for the Wikipedia article since before this AFD began. The claim that both are Baptist is not a serious claim that they are related parties; as reading our coverage of Baptists could tell you. Baptists just aren't as organized or like minded as most other denominations are; they are splintery like the Independent Catholic Churches. Per Baptists in the United States, there are four separate major groups of Baptist denominations. The ABP self describes in part as "Working out of our Jacksonville, Fla.- based headquarters, and with bureaus in Washington and Dallas, ABP provides daily coverage of Baptist news, news from the nation's capital, and other general news and information of concern to Christians in the U.S. and around the world." GRBerry 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I understand how loosely affiliated Baptist Churches are. But the article's author, Marv Knox, is the editor of the Baptist Standard, and the article you cite by the ABP is a direct copy of an article printed by Knox's Baptist Standard [10]. Another "independent" article cited (The Biblical Recorder) is written by Mark Wingfield, who worked for the Baptist Standard directly under Marv Knox [11]. The third article is by Ken Camp. Camp replaced Wingfield directly under Knox at the Standard when Wingfield returned to ministry. So, although Baptist churches are very loosely affiliated, it seems all three of the authors of the four referenced articles currently work for, or worked for, the Baptist Standard (and they all worked together and know each other intimately). That's not independent. Two of the other references provided are directly from the school's web site. Okay, now deep breath... Take a look at this article Baptist General Convention of Texas. Guess who one of the founding members of the BGCT was? That's right - B.H. Carroll. Guess what the official publication of the BGCT is? You got it -- the Baptist Standard. I hope that helps clarify what I meant. Peace! SkerHawx 16:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: So let's get this straight, even though the article meets each and every criteria of WP:V, and the sources meet WP:RS, all of which satisfy WP:CORP, one of the most widely agreed upon standards in Wikipedia, if not THE Bible, we should ignore all of this. Why? Because each and every author of every single one of the articles published about the school are all part of the vast right-wing Baptist Cabal. Somehow, despite the fact that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are all independent nationally-recognized publications, with editors and publishers looking over reporter's shoulder's, each member of the cabal was able to pull the wool over their eyes and get an article published. Send your theories to Dan Brown, it sounds like a great plot for a new book. But, other than that, it's pure unsupported original research. You'd be hard pressed to find any group of reporters covering any one industry -- Recording, Iowa Hot Dog Stands or Baptist churches -- who haven't worked together at some point in their career. Alansohn 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm sorry, I don't see any citations from the San Antonio, Kansas City, or Atlanta papers in this article. The Dallas and Ft. Worth papers are responding to a press conference covering a notable event (the abrupt resignation of four faculty members at SBTS, as below.) And I searched the papers you mentioned, and they all have articles from (only) November 2003 indicating the same information (faculty resigns, to form new institute - note future tense). SkerHawx 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: Two of the three secular articles cited are from Nov 5, 2003 (Dallas & Ft. Worth papers). These articles were covering a press conference [12] on Novemeber 4, 2003 and seem to be covering the abrupt departure of the four faculty members from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as much (or more) as covering the new school. Of course, both articles are (as mentioned above) future tense, since no such Institute existed yet. I'm not paying $2.95 to see the full text of the third article, but the only visible paragraph just repeats the information already known from the first two. Look, the Baptist Standard is the official paper of the BGCT, and all of the religious articles covering this came from the Baptist Standard or its writers. All but one of the articles was published in the Baptist Standard directly (see my citations above). This isn't a conspiracy, it's a Public relations strategy. WP:V is crumbling on this one. Take care, SkerHawx 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost convincing Where this falls apart is the link between those editors and the Institute. Yes, the Institute is named after one of the founders of the BGCT. But he was also a founder of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which the staff broke away. We wouldn't say that the Institute was affiliated with SWBTS because of using one of their founder's names. The argument was enough to go make me look and see if the BGCT supports the Institute. The BGCT's page on the schools they support does not mention this Institute. The results of a search at the BGCT's page don't show any sort of affiliation. They show trivial mentions a scholarshiop given to a student at the institute, a member of the Institute staff leading a tour group in the U.K, an event being taught by folks from Baylor University held in part at the site of this Institute, that the Institute is one of ninety-seven exhbitors at the 2006 convention, and one of nine schools of higher education hosting a special event at that convention. (The policies of the BGCT do allow non affiliated organizations to exhibit, I checked, and the hotel chain exhibiting is adequate evidence of that.) I also checked the Institute's web You've convinced me that a lot of the articles were written by people who know each other. You've also convinced me that those writers are the world experts on what events among Texas Baptists are newsworthy. You failed to convince me that they have any affiliation with the Institute, which is what independence is all about; see WP:INDY. So I continue to conclude that the articles are by independent sources. GRBerry 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last one This will be my last post on this AfD discussion, simply because I'm just not that passionate about whether or not this article is ultimately deleted. I'll answer your question and then just let the facts speak for themselves. Everyone is welcome to vote for a delete or a keep. Alas, you asked for some more detail, so I'll respond this last time. Here you go... Check out the BGCT member church web site [13] and cross-reference it with the institute's teaching churches [14]. A 100% match on all 17 churches. Charles Wade, executive director of BGCT, welcomed the Institute in "...our ongoing effort to train effective Christian leaders..." [15]. Dr. Russell Dilday, one of the founders of the Institute was a former president of the BGCT [16]. This is the bottom line ... the Institute and the Baptist General Convention of Texas have the same deposit of faith. Their visions are aligned, whether or not BGCT explicitly supports the Institute or not. The Baptist Standard is an official publication of the BGCT, and as a religious newspaper it writes from a certain paradigm. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not unbiased. (If Catholics in Atlanta created a Catholic Theological Institute, the Archidiocese of Atlanta's official paper (The Georgia Bulletin) would cover it (so long as it was in line with Catholic teachings). I wouldn't consider that to be an independent source. Nor would I consider other Catholic publications an authoritative source to help establish WP:V. So I'm just saying that the beliefs of the official voice of the BGCT and the beliefs of the Institute are 100% on target. As such, the BGCT (and therefore the Baptist Standard) have a vested interest in promoting the Institute. That's all. Peace, my friend. SkerHawx 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the point in deleting this ? Above users have made things pretty clear --NRS | T/M\B 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We are not a regulatory agency, nor are we interviewing graduates of the school as potential employees, so even if it were a giant unaccredited diploma mill, we should only look at notability, not legitimacy. This is the same principle on which we have articles about religions without having to prove the truth of their claimed miracles and the existence of their particular god. Similarly we have articles about hoaxes and pseudoscience, without certifying the truth of the claims. We are not the arbiters of truth, just of verifiable notoriety. The school has faculty formerly with the mainstream Southern Baptist seminary, who were pushed out by the fundamentalist takeover of that denomination. The school is widely mentioned in Baptist publications, has 400 students, and trains them in 15 churches. It appears to be notable.Edison 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per original nom. The only thing I take away after reading all of this mess (and losing some sanity as a result) is that the school is *still* not very notable. And we (the users and editors) *are* a regulatory agency, at least in terms of what gets posted and kept on Wikipedia. It doesn't meet WP:CORP any more than a diploma mill does. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. And let's get this straight - the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is NOT a school. That's a thing that kids go to and every school is notable and important in its community. It is argued often that every school is therefore worthy of an article in Wikipedia. I change my mind about this every week! But, I repeat, this is NOT a school - it is a non-notable, unapproved organisation with no classrooms. Emeraude 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acts 20:35 & Psalm 2:4 There is something very odd about this site. It seems to be written by someone who wants to paint the instituion in the worst possible light - perhaps the intention is to get it deleted for some reason? Having looked there appears to be three institutions trying to suggest they inherit the Caroll name. I've checked the web site, it looks pukka - it even does greek and that's not for the feeble minded. I've sent an email to the institute suggesting they look at the web page.

--Mike 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This appears to be fairly sizeable institution, if rather new. Comment: Arbustoo and others seem to focus on accreditation as a sole criterion for whether something counts as a legitimate higher education institution. I agree that for an ordinary college, that is a good rule. However, for a seminary or other "vocational" type schools (perhaps, say, a school of auto mechanics) I think the rule is not always applicable - the students' prospective employers (in this case, Baptist congregrations) don't care if the school is accredited, they want someone educated by a group that they themselves trust, and who can demonstrate their knowledge of the field. So, I think we need to focus on other factors - age, size, prominent graduates, connections with established denominations, press, etc. On another point, there also seems to be a tradition of distance education in theological education - probably because prospective ministers can't afford to attend a college full-time. I agree that this makes the institutions less notable, but I don't think it should disqualify them, just because there are fraudulent institutions that use the same methods. --Brianyoumans 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ark 22

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afriad I question the validity of that google search. 'Ark 22' is a very generic name so it stands to reason that most of those results have nothing to do with this game. How about providing direct links to some of those websites that establish notability? And as for the other games arguement, I feel judging any article in relation to another is a very poor thing to do, as articles should only be judged in relation to Wiki policies and guidelines, and secondly, most fan games are now being examined with a view to deletion if notability is not provided. The other games are usually only being 'allowed' insofar as no-one has had time to look at a specific article, but check the CVG project page to see just how many fan games are currently at AfD, and more are sure to be nominated soon.The Kinslayer 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, you forgot to add quotes around your search term, and even with quotes a search for "Ark 22" brings mostly unrelated stuff, e.g. "... they came to Henderson from Hot Springs, Ark. 22 years ago..." and lots more. A More reasonable search specific to this game would be "Ark 22" +"Game Maker" which brings us 43 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read the verifiability policy. Self-published material, because the threshold for creating them is very low, should have more rigorous requirements for verifiability (never mind notability, which requires multiple non-trivial third-party instances of verifiability). The reloaded interview is not sufficient, because most of the article is asking the creator questions (the content that the creator answers is considered primary source material). The fact that it's published on the web should not make the verifiability requirements less stringent then other forms of self-publishing. ColourBurst 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario War

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 08:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario War

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might and Magic Tribute: Book of Ceth

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 18:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  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!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.


Keep WHAT!??!!! Deleting Sonic: The Fated Hour is one thing, but Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX is definitely notable! It showed up on TV, for crying out loud! How can anybody be considering deleting this article?!?!!??? I'm off to contact Blaze... Just you wait!!!! --Luigifan 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously my vote is strong keep, I mean, G4TV dedicated an entire segment of Attack of the Show to the game - that passes notability. And what about bandwidth? Over 300,000 downloads and 7 terrabytes of bandwidth. Surely, that, too, passes notability. Most commercial games are considered a success when they sell over 250,000 copies of a game; well, 300,000 people have acquired my game. I need to say nothing further on the matter. BlazeHedgehog 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:SOFTWARE, to pass notability, this game must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." As far as I can tell, Attack of the Show is the only such example -- and that show often runs segments on things like Flash movies, Internet memes, "cool websites," and other assorted non-notable, non-encyclopedic ephemera. Add to that a bit of a vanity concern and I think we have a clear delete. No hard feelings, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of cool games and links. Andre (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was NOT just Attack of the Show. Several gaming websites gave it great reviews, as well, and possibly even a few magazines. Face it, the game's famous. Delete the article, and you're probably going to have your head ripped off by a horde of rabid fans. --Luigifan 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (formerly Weak keep) per Attack of the Show coverage and claim of having "been featured in many magazines". These magazines need to actually be cited within the article to "count", but it's a start. Weak keep for now, with the possibility of a full keep or weak delete depending on how the magazine coverage thing turns out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have updated my vote. Per below, it seems the magazine coverage is trivial and a mention on Attack of the Show apparently isn't such a big deal after all. I'd also like to point out that the conduct of the article's supporters on this Afd has been truly abysmal. Granted, that is certainly no reason to delete in and of itself, but it certainly doesn't help what is already a borderline case at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game was also in numerous published magazines. The number of downloads, and bandwidth it's used should be more than enough to take care of it's notability.

And Andre... You saying, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory for cool games and links" is so hypocritical. The majority of the wiki articles would never appear in a published encyclopedia, and you can't keep trying to make wiki a, "Standard Encyclopedia" because it's obviously become much more than that. --Ashuku 00:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what hypocrisy is involved here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be encyclopedic. Also, observers, please note that this user has under 50 edits. Andre (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its hypocritical because there are tons of articles on wikipedia like this, which are just as notable, and get keeps all the time. And if you read what I said, I clearly called it, "Much more than a standard encyclopedia".
Also, stating that I have under 50 edits was ignorant. Since when does the amount of edits I have reflect on my knowledge of wikipedia. Or Anything for that matter? Thats like saying a higher post count on a forum makes you a better member.
I read articles, and thats all that should matter. Fuck you and your edit count. --Ashuku 01:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit counts are an important aspect of AFD. Please see Wikipedia:Suffrage. Andre (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, how does that matter? Like I said, Andre, you're outnumbered... Blaze and I are both respectable users. I don't see how you can expect to win. --Luigifan 01:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ashuku, I said pretty much the same thing as you... only with fewer profanities. --Luigifan 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't want, or need, an idiot like you, who vandalizes user pages, to try and defend me. --Ashuku 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trivial" is such a broad term, though. What Person A considers trivial, Person B may not. What about Kotaku? Voted the number one gaming blog for Spike TV's Videogame Awards 2005. They mentioned MarioWeen when it first came out, too. Googling it returns 264,000 sites. Is that trivial to you? Because it's not trivial to me. I'll try to find the magazine scans I have (I saved most of them, but not in a unified folder or anything, and they lack identifying file names, so it's going to take me a while to track them down). Also, Luigifan: Chill out. BlazeHedgehog 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There. [[User:Andrevan#ANDREVAN IS A FANGAME HATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|I believe I've made my point]]... I'm terribly sorry that I had to resort to vandalism, but Andre isn't listening to reason. --Luigifan 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luigifan refers to this diff in which he vandalized my user page. Please do not vandalize user pages. Andre (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Itsame Delete Luigifan needs to calm the hell down. Danny Lilithborne 02:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I let myself get riled up, and that's my fault; I'll readily admit that I overreacted. However, Andrevan's being a bigot. He refuses to change his point of view, even with me, Blaze, and several others prodding solid evidence of this game's notability up his eyeballs. I've already calmly warned him to give us a fair shake. If Andrevan ignores this, he will suffer the consequences. --Luigifan 02:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously haven't calmed down. Don't sling threats around. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not understand what you want me to do. I still don't believe you have evidence of notability as per WP:SOFTWARE. Attack of the Show appears to be the only non-trivial mention (and even it is possibly quite trivial) and certainly the GamesMaster mention is trivial. I am not about to change my vote. Andre (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gamesmaster is only trivial to you because you're not British. And because you're determined to see things your way. It's the top gaming magazine in the UK; sure it only got a page's worth, but for a fangame, that's impressive. You say we've behaved poorly; well, I've called in UnDeRsCoRe, and he should be able to evaluate that. Like I said, I realize that I let myself get carried away; however, I'm not slinging threats around. I'm merely stating that Andrevan should be more open-minded, and that I'm prepared to act should he fail to develop this virtue. --Luigifan 02:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said earlier, triviality is not measuring the importance of the publication, but the prominence of the mention. The mention of this fangame was one sentence with no exposition or explanation. Andre (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Man, what did I tell you? Knock it off. You aren't helping me at all. BlazeHedgehog 02:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's about time I stepped into the shadows... the Ninja of Peace will help you from afar... Do not worry, Blaze. Andrevan will treat you as an equal before long. --Luigifan 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Strong Keep- Why on earth should this be deleted?! I mean, for one, it has been featured on magazines and a TV show, dosen't that qualify it as notable?! If we manage to find the said magazines then BOOM! we have a winner. Anyway, everyone (or mostly everyone) here thinks it's notable, and most "discussions" for deletion usually are decided by the number of people who think it is notable. And, no offense, Luigifan, you shouldn't go to such extremes. I don't wanna sound like I'm nagging, but it'll do more damage than good if you do that. Try to be civillized and maybe we'll be able to hold up a persusive argument. I mean, I wouldn't agree with someone who vandalized a page or is using profanity. If you vandalize and yell, how does that make you any better than those you are against? (I sound like something out of the Bible. I feel so cliched.) UnDeRsCoRe 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I said, for now, I am content to watch from afar... and to step in when needed. The Ninja of Peace will assist you from afar. --Luigifan 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding anything more than the GamesMaster scan. It WAS mentioned in Hardcore Gamer Magazine, but it was really trivial - one of the editors mentioned it under "Games I am playing this month". Which really, really sucks. I thought I at least copied the images in when I packed up the MarioWeen source and burned it to a CD, but they aren't there, either. I don't know where else to look unless I go through each and every individual image on my HDD - of which there are thousands. It would take me weeks (possibly even months) to go through them all. BlazeHedgehog 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a picture of that G4 show in the article. That's good enough to classify it as a way to "prove" something. UnDeRsCoRe 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough, see WP:CITE on how to add citations. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not citing its resources isnt a good reason to delete an article It's easily fixable. Not to mention it has all its sources in there, just not gathered at the bottom of the page. --Ashuku 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then if it's fixed, I will probably change my "vote". --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, are you accusing Blaze of using Photoshop? A picture is worth a thousand words. --Luigifan 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? I never said anything about Photoshop. Stop throwing around accusations. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You doubted tha testimony of a picture. Photoshop is the first thing that came to mind that could produce such a flawed testimony. However, that is not the case in this instance. --Luigifan 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what? I did not doubt that picture, and I never said that. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the picture was not as good as a citation. I said that a picture was worth a thousand words. Clearly, you do not understand the wisdom of the ancients. --Luigifan 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is not a proper citation here. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have referenced everything I could find. I hope it pleases you. BlazeHedgehog 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... The # of downloads really isn't going to show the notability, and the line about "and more" is WP:AWW. I think the Gamesmaster citation needs to have the page #, and I really don't think that Youtube is something to be cited. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know the exact page number as I don't have a physical copy of the magazine myself. I'll ask around and see if any of my friends have it, though. BlazeHedgehog 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The articles defenders are passionate, but that doesn't make the article any more notable. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources means that the coverage is EXTENSIVE and MULTIPLE. Simply saying "I think I read about it once in a magazine a buddy of mine had" fails the MULTIPLE and EXTENSIVE. Extensive in this context means the game needs to be REVIEWED, not just MENTIONED. If the people voting "keep" want to keep it, provide the link to a reliable source that has an actual REVIEW of the game, like lets say at LEAST a paragraph or two and some sort of rating. That would be a good start. Merely shouting, over and over again "it's notable because I say so!" isn't good enough. Please review Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. --Jayron32 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) vote changed, see below --Jayron32 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hm, have to say this is at least somewhat notable, stridency of its defenders notwithstanding. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It seems to have a following. That said, I don't think it quite meets WP:SOFTWARE. Nephron  T|C 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial evidence of notability (though I'd be willing to change my vote if presented with decent evidence), plus embarrassingly poor behavior on the part of Luigifan. I find it exceedingly difficult to find any merit to what is being said when it is being bookended by obscenities and insults. EVula 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Almost no fan-games are notable enough to have an article. If they are notable, then they need, as has already been mentioned, extensive and multiple references in legitimately notable sources. A blurb with a picture is not sufficient; if a big magazine has reviewed the game, that's probably good enough, but that doesn't seem to have been presented yet. The defenders are passionate and if they want to defend the article better they'd be do better if they didn't continually fall back on ad hominem attacks, which only hurts them. Find us a review in a mainstream source and you'll probably get many of us to support keeping it. --The Way 05:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact that it has been mentioned a great deal it seems on Attack of the Show and elsewhere, the reliability of the sources could use a bit of work though -Derktar 05:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No non-trivial references. Scattered mentions in blogs and offhand mention in one magazine maybe that somebody kinda remembers do not notability make.--Colindownes 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this one is a bit marginal, but the TV show featuring it makes it notable enough, in my opinion. Avoid bias against things like fan-made games; judge them objectively. Everyking 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The malice, hatefulness and blatant abuse of WP:CIVIL evidenced in this "discussion" make it impossible for me to form an objective opinion. --Masamage 08:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Andre said, Attack of the Show discusses niche games as well as mainstream ones. However their coverage alone does not instantly make anything they discuss noteworthy. Most likely this fangame will never gain sufficient noteriety to have an article here, because, when it comes down to it, fangames are absolutely illegal unless the copyright holder says otherwise, and this one even uses ripped sprites in addition to copyrighted names and likenesses. If it ever earns a GameSpot entry like Halo Zero then, yes, I could say it's pushing the notability margin as an established authority has recognised it. AOTS is not such an authority. GarrettTalk 09:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Once again Garrett said what I was thinking, just in a better way than I could. The Kinslayer 10:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was... uncivilized... a while ago. Maybe even a barbarian. But, now, I have assumed the guise of the Ninja of Peace... Calm and introspective... Keeping a level head is a key element of Ninjitsu. A ninja who flies into a beserk rage is a ninja who won't last long. Analyzing the situation and waiting for the precise oppurtunity to deliver a deciding blow; that is how a ninja wins his battles. You are no match for my serene rebuttals through wisdom. --Luigifan 11:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mentioned this game at an earlier AfD as an example of a notable fangame. I think fangames can be notable, and that this game is a great example. Maxamegalon2000 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that fan-games can be notable, but this one isn't. We need solid, reliable, and notable sources that prove the game is notable, and it just hasn't been provided. EVula 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, block Luigifan and Ashuku Their personal threats, vandalism, profanity, and disruption of the process have been embarrasing to watch. The game, however, seems quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Auto movil 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I lost my temper when I felt that Andrevan was ignoring us. However, now I see that it's because you don't think the citations are good enough. I would agree... if this was a commercial project. However, a mention is the best coverage a fangame can expect, evn if it's pretty good. If it actually gets an article in a magazine, it must be stellar... on the other hand, this game should fit those guidelines. Actually, Wikipedia is probably the site that does the best job of explaining this game, short of Blaze's website itself, and that's one of the major reasons I'd like to keep the article. --Luigifan 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what Wikipedia is for. I'm sorry, but if a mention is the best coverage something can get, then it has not made a significant impact on the world. Doesn't matter what it is. WP articles are required to base their reports on information that has already been published by a reputable source; no such thing exists for this, so we can't keep it.
    I think you should start some kind of Fangamepedia, and make your own standards for inclusion, and achieve your comprehensive list that way. The Wikimedia software is extremely easy to download and set up. Could be a lot of fun, and if done well, could probably be an external link from the Fangame WP article. --Masamage 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I will agree that any "X" can be notable. The only wikipedia guideline that matters is "Non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources". Can anyone voting keep provide these MULTIPLE, RELIABLE, and NONTRIVIAL citations? If you can, I will change my vote. If all you can do is assert notability without providing evidence, then why should that give the admins a reason to keep the article. Remember, this isn't a vote, this is part of an investigation. Investigations require evidence. --Jayron32 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm invoking the common-sense rule. There's no dispute that the game exists, was featured on a television show, and has a large number of players. The guidelines were intended to ensure this type of notability -- to provide a test for it. They weren't intended to disqualify otherwise-notable topics that fall under a certain unspecified threshold of media attention. That said, my personal interest in the game and the article, and in fan games in general (and Mario stuff in particular) is pretty much zero. Auto movil 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to sound rude, but with all due respect it doesn't really matter whether the subject is interesting to you or any other particular individual. Virtually everything is interesting to somebody, that doesn't mean it needs to be on Wikipedia. I find a number of things interesting that aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. The guidelines which have been formulated for us to follow were designed for this precise reason. --The Way 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. For instance, I'm extremely interested in my husband, in my friends' blogs, in the way some people's ears have bumps on the tips, and in the awesome birthmark on the back of my right knee. Not one of those things would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --Masamage 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why should it matter that this is a fan-made game? It's a game that's appeared on television, SEVERAL gaming websites as well as printed magazines in a few countries, and has been downloaded a great amount of times. It has a fairly detailed Wikipedia entry, complete with references and screenshots. All of which is more then I can say about a good amount of officially released games, I can tell you. Oh, and it's also been mentioned in NGC Magazine. A scan here: http://coldflame.doorsclosing.com/images/twilightNGCarticle.jpg (I have a full page scan for anyone who asks for it) I hope this may help even slightly in proving the article's notability even further. H Hog 16:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scanned image would count as a trivial source (at least to me). A sidebar is not the same as an actual article, which would be much more impressive. EVula 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guidelines don't specify a distinction between sidebars and other reviews. Their purpose is to ensure that a game actually exists, and that it has wide enough recognition to have appeared in objective media sources. A nine-page spread in some game-industry journal would also be more impressive, honestly, but we've reached that crucial moment in which an article has satisfied the spirit of the guidelines, and has passed the common-sense test (i.e., it's not fancruft, a commercial pitch, or a vanity page), and votes for deletion are going to have to rest on opinion and personal taste. My own opinion is that game stuff is completely uninteresting, but the article isn't for me, if you see what I mean. Auto movil 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not strike as notable enough to me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • change vote to keep: In light of new evidence (the scaned image from H Hog), coverage is definately NONTRIVIAL. Though short, it is an honest-to-god review, that establishes notability. We also have other short (though also nontrivial) reviews listed in a few places above. Let this be an object lesson to everyone on how to do research and provide evidence to a defence. Cold hard facts will beat passion any day. --Jayron32 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am one to agree that most indy projects do not deserver articles however this one has reached acclaim for what it is, G4, Kotaku, etc. Its obviously meeting the standard of notability. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only coverage presented is trivial. Two sentences and a web address hardly meets WP:RS. Wickethewok 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think this should be deleted, then by that same logic, many, many, wiki articles need to go. Such as the All your base articles, any and all fangame articles and basically 1/3rd of wikipedia. Don't be silly, the fact that wikipedia has articles on such things that have a small or 'cult' following is what makes it a cut above other encyclopedias. To delete this would be to denounce the foundation of wikipedia. This is a definite keeper. Perfect Chaos Zero 01:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Hey Andrevan, are you listening to this?!? --Luigifan 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All your base" has been cited in 44 "scholarly" articles per google scholar. I'm sure I could find enough to make the page stick. It's notable and sourcable--they're not comparable. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that fall short of notability guidelines. If you find similar that you feel do not meet the guidelines, put them up for deletion. But that's not the point. We're not discussing 1/3 of Wikipedia, we're talking about this article. We have objective criteria to determine this article's merits and we should used those to determine rather than the "if we delete this, we have to delete 1/3 of wikipedia" strawman. --Kunzite 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Perfect Chaos Zero is saying, is that this page does fit in Wikipedia, albeit in a sort of "stubbish" fashion, in that it's encyclopedic enough to be included in an online encyclopedia, but would be a waste of paper (and a bit of extra mass) in a paper encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be dynamic, and to cover things that other encyclopedias would ignore, this page shouldn't be deleted. --Luigifan 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know. Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is also not the repository of all human knowledge. Wikipedia also has content guidelines. They should be applied. --Kunzite 02:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article needs to be trimmed down tremendously, including cleaning up a lot of peacock terms. A four line entry is not being "featured" in a magazine. Linking an article to a user's page is NOT appropriate. Having 3/4 of your article consisting of a trivia section does not give any real information. I'm going to through and whittle this article down to what is verifiable and non-trivial. --Wafulz 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I'm removing a lot of the media mentions. The digg article just points to a primary source. The Insert Credit article says "by brandon, via Ryan Bloom". I've taken out the "game of the week thing" because 1. Game of the week = 52 per year => not too hard to do and 2. There were 70 votes, which makes it susceptible to ballot-stuffing. --Wafulz 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say keep the game of the week thing considering how many titles are released a year, and this was an indy project, its more then a testament to success on behalf of the developers. --NuclearZer0 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I've put it back in. However, I've taken out the "landslide" bit because apparently the votes aren't archived and there's no other source for it, meaning leaving it in would leave us as a primary source for that information. --Wafulz 15:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has gained the attention of those in the business of games, having appeared on Attack of the Show, so if they feel it's notable enough to get on their show, I feel it's notable enough to have it's own page. JQF 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime 2D

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jayron32. An unfinshed, non-notable unverifiable fan game. The Kinslayer 09:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but when the game comes out and if it gains popularity, I suggest the article be recreated.SuperDT 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been following this game's progress for a while, and could never justify its having an article. Maxamegalon2000 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom and Jayron32 spell out the arguement for deletion very well. --Kunzite 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even as a fan of their work, I have to say the case is not essentially different from unreleased game mods. Welcome back when the game is actually finished and has gotten the due attention from the community at large... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Weak delete in light of magazine mention. Not keep, because I think the magazine mention in question is borderline trivial - not entirely trivial (as in "name and an URL"), but you can just say that "hey, it registers on the radar" but you can't really say "whoa, an article". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If only because Andrevan is going around flagging all these for deletion when certain ones should definitely be kept. Andrevan is no doubt aware that nobody is going to defend these poor games; most folks come in and say, "Oh it fails WP: Software so I'll vote delete on principal" without even thinking of anything else. It's very one-sided and kind of sneaky, if you ask me. Besides, Metroid Prime 2D has been mentioned in a magazine, and while somebody will no doubt go "It's a sentence and a screenshot", it's better than nothing at all. [17] There may even be more mentions in magazines, but I don't exactly keep up with what magazines mention Metroid Prime 2D; but this just goes with what I was saying earlier: The people who COULD defend Metroid Prime 2D are not here to do so, so I will do my best in their wake. BlazeHedgehog 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Voting "keep" because you disagree with the nominating editor is a really, really bad policy. And, yes, a screenshot and a sentence (or two, in this case) is hardly a non-trivial mention. EVula 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but the genius of voting like this is you can vote for whatever reason you wish, and I think Andrevan is being unfair. These are Wikipedia guidelines, not set-in-stone follow-them-or-die rules. In the tidal wave of useless information on Wikipedia, fangames are the minority. While I would definitely support these AFDs if everybody and their grandmother had a fangame on Wikipedia, they don't, usually because the TRULY useless ones end up speedy deleted. However, games like Metroid Prime 2D, Mario Forever, and SRB2 are articles that people generally seem to like and keep more or less up to date, suggesting that the project is known well-enough that people want to contribute to it's article. Andrevan is exploiting vague Wikipedia guidelines, like some cheesy lawyer who looks for every loophole to win a court case. I'm sure he thinks he has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and I hold nothing personal towards him, but imagine if I went around putting articles up for AFD that I simply didn't care for. Imagine if EVERYBODY did the same. Half of Wikipedia would be up for AFD constantly! BlazeHedgehog 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, I think it's entirely fair to voice concerns. However, I don't believe voting keep is utterly uncalled for in this case, if the nominator can bring some reasons to keep this article not deleted, and a magazine mention is a good reason. I'd advise everyone involved to calm down a bit though; accusations of bad faith nominations aren't particularly fun to throw around lightly, especially when these days a lot of fan stuff gets nominated for deletion. Consider AfDs a trial by fire that every topic that isn't on rock-solid foundation has to go through if someone so notices. Consider it an opportunity - a dire and dramatic opportunity, but an opportunity nevertheless - to improve the notability/sourcing details of the article in question. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mention it in the Metroid Prime article itself (and be sure to cite the magazine as well). --Tristam 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Special Operations

Non-notable fanmade game scenario, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a general rule fan games are non notable. Deathawk 01:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Might and Magic 3½: In the Wake of Gods

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete - If anything, reclassify. This is a well-known mod to Heroes 3, and this article is informative in this regard. Since it is more properly a "mod" than an actual game, it would be best to classify it as such. Mindthief 06:46, 28 October 2006 (US/PT)
    • The issue isn't over the overall infomativeness of the article, the fact of the matter is that it provides no links to any sites bar it's own. To be preserved here it would need links to news storys, awards, and other third-party sources of information. We can't just take it at it's word that it should be here. The Kinslayer 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swords of Xeen

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though initially fanmade, this was included in some of 3DO's own later re-releases of the Might and Magic series. Definitely notable. PurplePlatypus 00:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) NOTE: This vote has been vandalized twice. I don't know anything about the person who did this, but it sure isn't good for the credibility of the Delete side.[reply]
  • Havok, you seem to consistently forget that cleaning up an article is not the responsibility of the people who think it should be deleted. You also overlook that this is a discussion about deleting an article. The comment you replied to was stating why they thought the article should be deleted, as they are supposed to. If someone disagrees, then it is up to THEM to put the proof in the article, which I note that despite making snotty comments about to other people, you yourself never do. So if I were you I would either practice what I preach and clean-up the article myself, seeing as it's you who disagrees with the AfD, or, if your not prepared to do that, stop making snotty little copy+paste comments in AfDs when someone says why they think an article should be deleted. The Kinslayer 09:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article claims this was released as part of a compilation with the real titles in the series, but that doesn't necessarily make it canonical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know whether or not it was fanmade, but this game was released by the publisher, and that makes it an official part of the series. I've got it as part of the collection that came with Might and Magic VI. That makes it a definite keeper. FrozenPurpleCube 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I can provide a screenshot from the game if anybody wants confirmation. FrozenPurpleCube 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that there is any prejudice going on; people ask for sources, like they would in an article for a game published by a company instead of being self-published; sources weren't given. Merge because of retroactive integration into M&M 6 SE but lack of sourcing. ColourBurst 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Andre (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Forever

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable fan game with no third-party sources. The Kinslayer 09:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I seem to remeber seeing this as one of the most popular downloads on download.com for a while. Thats certainly why it was on my computer. Robinoke 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If only because Andrevan is going around flagging all these for deletion when certain ones, such as Mario Forever, should definitely be kept. The popularity of Mario Forever is what prompted me to make MarioWeen. It may not have had very many noteworthy mentions on magazines or on TV, but, well, a considerable amount of encyclopedic information on Wikipedia on software would have to be deleted on the same grounds. Andrevan is no doubt aware that nobody is going to defend these poor games; most folks come in and say, "Oh it fails WP: Software so I'll vote delete on principal" without even thinking of anything else. It's very one-sided and kind of sneaky, if you ask me. BlazeHedgehog 18:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldnt agree more. There are some significant fanbased games put of for deletion the last couple of days and being deleted on principle with hardly any comment. Robinoke 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your both coming across as pretty daft to be honest. For all your repeated claims of how significant this and other games have been, I've yet to see you ONCE come up with any of the proof that would save the article. WP:ILIKEIT says why merely saying 'It's popular' or 'I like it' doesn't cut it. We need news stories, and other associated THIRD-PARTY (translation: Nothing to do with the games creator) sources of information. If you can't get them, then Wiki policy states the article must be deleted. Blaze merely votes to keep something with no actual reason, and has recently been voting to keep solely based on who nominated the article, which is stupid, to be frank. And FYI Blaze, people are saying 'This article should be deleted because it fails to meet WP:X, Y and Z' because that's the point of having policies. They ensure standards are (supposedly) maintained and prevent cases like this where an article seems to be being used solely to attract more traffic to the creators site. Wiki is not an advertising service, and if someone can't be bothered to say WHY an article should be kept, then it wont be. If you think this article doesn't deserve to be deleted then prove us wrong. Find some news stories (and 7 word mentions in another article don't count either), put the information in the article, and cite them.The Kinslayer 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Wickethewok 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Wickethewok. Combination 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Re-Born

No sources to verify this album (per User:Discospinster). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as an unverifiable hoax, closing early per WP:SNOW. No arguments for keeping. --Coredesat 09:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puxatony Middle School

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:SCHOOLS. School has only 27 students, no information on the history or verifiability of the school is provided, and the school is not a High School or post-secondary facility. NMChico24 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete--Tone 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Byrne

Questionable notability. ghits: [19]. NMChico24 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acmegeddon

This article is just a plot summary of a tv show episode. This fails part of Wiki policy WP:NOT. See point 7 in the not an indiscriminate collection of information section which states:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic

This does not satisify this policy. Metros232 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Kappa 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, my understanding of "aspect of a larger topic" is that you can use a plot summary to say: this episode is important to pop culture/society/whatever...here is what happens in the episode...here is why what happens is important. This article is simply saying what happened, nothing of importance or cultural significance and, as such, doesn't fit as an "aspect of a larger topic". Metros232 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- plot summary only, no context or anything at all indicating significance. older ≠ wiser 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I find it hard to believe that Loonatics has enough of a fanbase for stuff like this to crop up. Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Weak Delete. I did not originally notice that there was a page (WP:EPISODE) that laid down specific policies on this sort of thing. Per a violation of that page, I have changed my vote accordingly. As a postscript though, I'm not sure we should delete any and all articles that just need a bit of cleanup. Is it not possible that, considering the page is only a few weeks old, someone could have cleaned up the article with the appropriate sources in the future? Green451 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)I have never heard of this show, nor do I want to see it, but a precedent has already been set for articles on a TV show episodes. Look at the articles List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes and List of House episodes, and you will see that these shows have articles for almost every episode of their series. While this TV show certainly isn't as well known compared to my examples, as long as it recieves non-questionable third-party media coverage, then it mandates inclusion, in my humble opinion. Green451 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about House, but if you look at most any article on a Star Trek episode, it is more than simple plot summary. Plot summary alone does not make for an encyclopedia article. And seeing as how these are the only episodes with an article for the show and not a whole lot of activity in improving them, I don't see any reason to keep them. I mean, if you want to bring them all up the the level of quality of Star Trek episode articles, that'd be just great--but, good luck with that. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, a precedent has not been set. The best indicator of whether Wikipedia should have articles on individual episodes of television series is whether those episodes have already, outside of Wikipedia, been documented in detail individually, independently of the show's creators/producers/promoters. Episodes of series like Star Trek and Babylon 5 have been documented in detail, individually and independently. That, not precedent, is the basis upon which we can justify having articles on the individual episodes. Precedent, i.e. "If article X then article Y.", is a fundamentally flawed argument. To make a good argument, cite sources, in this case sources where this episode of a television show has been individually documented in detail independently of its creators/producers/promoters. Uncle G 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep as an episode of a notable TV show, I'd say it's a keep by default. However, this article should be tagged for clean-up and other improvement. Make it something more like the Avatar episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is this a "notable TV show"? Where are the books about it? Where are references to critical reception? older ≠ wiser 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was on KidsWB! and now the CW, and it involves derivations from long-established Looney Toons characters. Pretty much says notability for a television series to me. How is it not notable? Because some college professor hasn't taught a course on it yet? Oh well. I don't need that sort of thing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is really something odd that I just discovered (and probably a nice little example of systematic bias) but the "Who shot J.R.?" episode of Dallas (TV series), the second-most watched television episode of all-time, doesn't have its own article. It has simply a paragraph along with about 5 other notable episodes in the Dallas article. Metros232 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic has been coming up a lot lately. Notability guidelines for fiction require that articles be MORE than just a summary and that they MUST provide real world context. Having articles for every single episode of every single tv show is a bit much, wouldn't you say? I've suggested that in cases where a show has lots of such articles that they be merged into articles covering the show by season, which also helps to place them in context with the show as a whole at least. --The Way 05:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's funny that you would pair such a helpful suggestion with such a confrontational vote. Kappa 06:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I vote on a number of AfDs daily anymore, it's not very confrontational, just an administrative type function that average editors on the Wikipedia do. The suggestion was to merge it into a broader article that covers the season in which it appeared; if there's nothing to merge it into, I still think it should be deleted. The article of an individual episode needs to be deleted regardless. --The Way 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having articles for every single episode of every single tv show is a bit much, wouldn't you say? No, I'd say that's exactly what I'd like. Ok, not every single TV show, since game shows, for example, would rarely qualify, or news programs, and soaps would probably be a bit overwhelming, but for the most part, yes, I would like most TV shows to have an article. Oh, sometimes all the episodes might well be described in one page, but the important thing is to have the information. FrozenPurpleCube 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. When the plot summary of a two-part animated cartoon episode is twice as long as the plot summary of War and Peace, there would appear to be something wrong with the article about the cartoon. --Metropolitan90 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is apparently a two-part episode of a cartoon TV show. We keep episode summaries as a matter of practice. Everyking 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need for such long summaries when no other info is available. Everything we need to know is in Episodes of Loonatics Unleashed, Season 1, this article badly fails WP:NOT and doesn't seem to have a chance to be expanded with out-of-universe, notable, WP:V info. The show is notable, but this particular episode (or presumably anyt other one) isn't. Fram 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. None of the other episodes of this series have their own articles, I don't see why this one should. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Were this not a simple plot summary, but an article with a real-life subject, I would probably vote delete for the following reasons: Stinks of WP:OR; no sources; few wikilinks; no cats and a non-notable (WP:NN) subject. With it being an article about just one episode of a notable (as established by the fact that it has an article) TV series, I feel that it should definately be deleted - the text in it is really unneccesary, as all the inforamtion that most people need (and which should be on WP) is in the table. Martinp23 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, and this is solely a plot summary. notable? prove it with citation/analysis. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. Also, I don't see anything in WP:EPISODE to suggest this article isn't allowed, and even if three were it isn't official policy. It does need extensive work and clean-up. Also, if there aren't any further episode articles created for this series, then this could be considered for deletion later as an orphan. 23skidoo 02:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a note - although WP:EPISODE is not policy, it does say that if an article is completely unvierifable, then it can be taken to AfD (paraphrasing here...). As it is, this article has no sources, stinks of orginal research and is completely unverifable. I feel that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix these problems. Martinp23 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Andre (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper (video game)

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Hovertank 3D. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hover Tank 3D

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squarez

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If every programming student put the game they created for there class, that would just clog Wikipedia up. It looks like a rip off of alot more popular game, even makes claims to such in the game. No sources meaning it is originial research. Chris Kreider 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Cromwell

NN fictional character already adequately covered in Halloweentown. Seraphimblade 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birgu (Streets)

Also nominated: Bormla (streets), Mdina (streets), Senglea (streets), Siġġiewi (streets), Rabat, Gozo (streets), Zejtun (streets)

Delete. Seven lists of streets of towns on Malta. I made List of streets in Valletta look ok (not nominated). The rest of the lists are NN, as the cities are not that important. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SeXxX

Nonnotable Internet radio station. Author asserts that there was "media coverage" in article and on talk page, but cites no sources. NawlinWiki 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete . Tone 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (song)

This was previously nominated for deletion, and the result was to delete. The article has since been reposted, and there appears to have been no information of substance added between now and the original article, and so I'm renominating this for deletion. Since I was the one to close the AfD originally, I will abstain from voting for conflict-of-interest reasons. Mo0[talk] 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology in fiction

Contested ProD. Unverified original research. An unencyclopaedic essay. Unsearchable title, orphaned article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Apart from the first ssentence, which is rubbish, a good read, but just someone's essay. 17:16, 27 October 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. Wickethewok 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with complete sentence name

Pure listcruft. Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links, is not a directory. Only two pages link to this article, including another "list of" article. SkerHawx 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I am not sure about the category, "complete sentence name"? And I agree that this list does not explain anything, it is just putting names. Cheers -- Imoeng 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I find it incredibly amusing that many of the band names in this article are in fact not complete sentences. Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something close to indiscriminate information, albeit of a passing interest. Discussion on the article's Talk page implies an amout of OR as well, as at least one user is talking about the context in which certain words are used in the hypothetical sentences. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was me on the talk page, where a word can have two meanings, and one of those meanings makes the name a sentence and one doesn't, I point it out on the talk page. No OR at all, just pointing out what I meant when I added them. -- Chuq 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete sentence names are not. Article useless. Should be deleted. Opabinia regalis 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I come through and delete the non-complete-sentence band names every so often. I had a look at the page a couple of days ago, but didn't do the deleting then. Maybe if I had, this article wouldn't have been nominated... -- Chuq 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - have cleaned up a lot of the crap (bands of questionable existence/notability, and bands who's names do NOT form a complete sentence). -- Chuq 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lists of (notable things) with a (notable trait) are notable lists. Lists of (notable things) with a (non-notable trait) are not notable. This list is not more notable, than say, "List of Bands with 'The' in their name" or "List of Bands with Three Word Names" Linguistic coincidences are not notable traits. --Jayron32 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of comment is why I hate the word notability. It's irrelevant whether the article itself is notable. Sheesh. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
replyplease elaborate. I do not understand this comment. Notability, as defined in unequivocal terms in WP:NN, is the primary criteria for the existance of all articles on wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a guideline, not policy. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are the primary criteria. Notability is a shortcut to ensure articles can be written that meet those. We're not out to write notable articles, or articles about notable things, we're out to write verifiable articles without original research that reflect a neutral, objective point of view. Limiting ourselves to things that receive a reasonable level of attention is a means to that end. "this list is not more notable..." is an absolutely absurd statment, because none of our lists are notable by our standards. The characteristic may be notable or not, but we don't have notability guidelines for features of songs, because they're not the kinds of things we use that for. Notability is not the end-all be-all too many people seem to think it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If notability were never included, then all sorts of information would be allowed on wikipedia, and common sense says that some threshold must be established before something warrents an encyclopedia article. For example: You can verify my existance through public records (phone books, tax records, birth announcements, marriage announcements, property assessements, that sort of thing. Heck, I have even been in the paper a few times. Been on TV too!). You can write an NPOV article about the information you find there. Doing so is not original research. And yet, I AM NOT WORTHY OF A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Why? I have done nothing notable. Lets not bicker about the difference between "guideline" and "policy". Notability is IMPORTANT. It establishes whether an encyclopedia article should be written on a subject. This subject lacks notability. It should be deleted. --Jayron32 18:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're using a really hazy and subjective sort of notability. If you've had several newspaper articles and tv news stories about you, I'd say you've probably done something worthy of note. Being on TV isn't quite same, though, if they just happen to interview you. The problem with writing an article about you would be that we wouldn't have anything verifiable to write that would be anything other than a directory entry. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Explain the haziness and subjectiveness in these terms: NONTRIVIAL: Extensive coverage, more than just a mention, the subject in question should be one of the primary focus of the sources. MULTIPLE: Many, several, numerous. RELIABLE SOURCES: Editiorial process, WP:RS. Nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The only criterion that is worthy of defending WRT to notability. This subject does not bear out, as there is no critical review of bands just for their names. But there cannot be nontrivial coverage of what is essentially a trivial fact. Thus the list should be deleted. WRT my notability, I have not had "several articles" about me. My name has appeared in the newspaper as a graduate of highschool, college graduate, when I got married. I also had a picture published in the paper when I was a child for "Hey, look how cute this kid is" kind of article. I appeared on TV as a participant in a high school quiz show that airs on a single public television station. I am not notable. All of these instances are verifiable, but they are trivial in the sense that extensive review has NOT been done with regards to these sources. Thus, I am not notable, thus I am not worthy of an article. Lists of bands by genre of music WOULD be notable, since there is extensive coverage of bands within the context of their genre. There is nothing more than trivial coverage of bands merely because of linguistic coincidences in their names. Arguing against notability will get you no where. There is near complete consensus that notability (or lack therof) is a criteria for deletion. If you need to establish that for yourself, read through any days worth of AfDs. See which articles get deleted. See why people want them deleted. Merely because you, as a single editor, do not want notability to "count" and find it "fuzzy" does not mean that the general consensus will change to your opinion. The consensus opinion is that notability is both easily definable and understandable AND an important criteria to a subjects worthyness. This subject is not worthy, since it fails the primary notability criteria: It has no hope of ever warrenting NONTRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES. Thus, it dies on the vine. Delete it. --Jayron32 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are other examples of a particular article type doesn't mean that any one given article should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. NRS says there are many such lists and s/he is right. There are also many dog turds, but it doesn't mean I'm keeping the one on the pavement outside my house. Emeraude 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please be nice Emeraude. Everybody on wikipedia is entitled to their opinion, and I would also point out that whomever maintains the page might not appreciate having their work equated with 'dog turds'. As to the issue at hand, I added a link on the main list of musicians page to the list nominated for deletion. It is entirely possible that someone, somewhere could say, 'Hm, I'd like to make a playlist featuring bands whose names are a gramatically correct sentence.' If Wikipedia could meet this hypothetical person's needs, the efforts of this article's creator will not be wasted. Just my two pennies... -bobby 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. I didn't mean to equate this particular article with dog turds. The point I wanted (and perhaps failed) to make is that just because there are a lot of anything, it doesn't mean that any one or any number of them are worth preserving - in this case lists in general. Emeraude 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely worthless to anyone, Unless you are doing an essay on pop culture use of complete sentences(which I doubt). Acsta 23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayron32 and The Way. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like this list and I find it interesting. Even though it's not informative in any particularly significant or useful way, I do not see how anyone would benefit as a result of deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.40 (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. Andre (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within a Deep Forest

Non-notable independent game, does not pass WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - And again, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Although Google returned some results, those are blogspots, not-notable. Cheers -- Imoeng 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changed vote. I'm tired of arguing over a crappy article. Please disregard the IP address addition of the PC Gamer reference. It makes no sense why a December edition is being released in October.
    • It may not make sense but it is acurate. (I made the edit, but forgot to log in) Issue 168 (Page 126 in case anyone has a copy and can confirm) of UK PC Gamer is labled as being the December issue and was released on October 26th. The issue released on November 23rd (169) will most likely be labled 'Christmas.' Its daft, but thats the way it is. --JamesGlover 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CherryT 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The game's defender admits it fails WP:Software which is enough for deletion. The rest of his argument, that he 'enjoyed it' is irrelevant; I enjoy the bar down the street but I'm not creating an article for it. And also, Cherry, please refrain from ad hominem attacks about people being 'law nerds.' The AfD are here expressly to have Wikipedia guidelines applied to them, without exception. There's no more reason to grant an exception in this case than in any other. --The Way 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Charlesknight 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. Only two articles link here. That's not a lot of redlinks, certainly not enough to suggest that we need an article. Cherry, we don't have to prove the article is non-notable, you have to prove it's notable. There's really no such thing as 'proof' of non-notability, just the absence of verifiable sources demonstrating notability. If we can't find such sources, we consider the article non-notable. -- Vary | Talk 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — google has 820 hits, that ain't bad; it seems like it is kind of notable to me... JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the concept of the article is a keep, but it was clearly written by a crazed fanboy and I'd rather have no article than the current one. But the game is notable in my experience. It's commonly cited to me as one of the greatest freeware games of all time, despite the fact it's only a few months (?) old. -- 70.251.0.41
so what if it is cited to you? What can you offer in the way of sources? --Charlesknight 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, CherryT Authorize Deletion of this article. The deletion is posted. This article may be deleted unless there is no longer a consensus on the deletion of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CherryT (talk • contribs) .

You don't have the power to authorize anything, but we'll take that as a delete vote. Andre (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That should be changed then... an author should have the power to request speedy deletion if he/she feels that the copy he/she created doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That's like a webhost saying that I can't delete HTML pages on my webserver, or that an author can't tell his publisher to stop distributing his books.

CherryT 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you add a page to Wikipedia, you release your prose under the GFDL and therefore it ceases being "your" copy, so your analogies are false. There is, however, this rule: Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. In this case that rule clearly does not apply because you didn't mistakenly create the article. Andre (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Considering these were created by a spammer, their accuracy is in question. They may be redirected where appropriate, and I would be happy to restore to a temporary location any of them that would be useful for merging information or for transferring to wiktionary if you think you have the appropriate expertise to verify them. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anaplerosis

Also nominated are:

Delete all — editors AmberLeigh (talk · contribs), Grooooopster (talk · contribs), Rufus the man (talk · contribs), 24.167.218.150 (talk · contribs), 141.106.188.156 (talk · contribs) and 141.106.188.141 (talk · contribs) have been systematically adding links to the external site in these articles. Besides adding the links to numerous existing articles, these articles were also created. The edits appear to be a conflict of interest and original research. The author of the If I Were ... novel is also listed as the website contact. JonHarder 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Mobile Device Vibration Syndrome

Per WP:OR, or, if not that, WP:NEO. Article feels extremely "hoaxey", two (unreliable) sources cited, and a Google search for this exact phrase turns up nothing. Skipped ProD process to allow appropriate discussion. A potential candidate for WP:BAD. Green451 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanov Salad

Not notable, maybe original research. I never heard of this supposedly "traditional Russian Food", no Google references, tomatoes (shown on the picture) are an impossible ingredient in the ivan IV time, lemon juice was rare and expensive in Northern Russia and Siberia until very recent times, thery improbable ingredient for a traditional dish. Delete unless referenced Alex Bakharev 02:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy T. Rapisardi

Does not meet WP:NOT, no other page links to it, all its non-generic links are broken, page hasn't been updated since it's creation. Flabreque 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE, nothing verifiable to merge. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle City Mall

Contested PROD. Yanksox 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator, no "delete", "merge" etc. views presented. Daniel.Bryant 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mory's

Non-notable club/bar/restaurant/whatever. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 02:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


But, sir, Mory's is quite famous. It is definitely not a non-notable club, and I don't say this because of any partisan issue. Mory's is a very old institution that was immortalized by Bing Crosby and Elvis himself in their songs. If you don't believe me, do some web-surfing. It means something to a few of us out there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckkgourmet (talk • contribs) .

Well, since hardly anyone can actually be a member of Mory's (I'm not--are you?), I guess I can hardly advertise the place!

Actually, changed my stance to neutral. The reference I provided isn't more than a quick mention, and I can't find any sources related to the connection between the establishment and Crosby/Elvis that suffice to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the connection to Elvis and the Whiffenpoof Song recorded here: http://users.pandora.be/davidneale/elvis/originals/list8.html and for Bing Crosby, take for instance the following: http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1103651/a/Bing:+His+Legendary+Years+1931-1957.htm As for Mory's itself, it just happens to be housed in a famous historical structure in of itself (dating to 1812, older than the club), one of the most notable places at an incredidbly famous institution, and one of the longest surviving institutions of its kind, a part of the texture of New Haven's history, and the history of American college life in the 19th century in particular. It's mentioned in any number of books on the area.

None of those sources contain a single mention of Mory's. Notability is not asserted.--Húsönd 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, sir, you don't seem to understand: they mention the "Whiffenpoof Song," an extremely well-known ballad amongst older Americans, which is all about Mory's. I think this is why you are so confused. Anyhow, your point is now moot, given the confirmation of the other responses below.

  • Strong Keep I'll apply the "random bypasser" test. I'm a random bypasser (didn't go to Yale and never been to Mory's). But I've heard of Mory's. It's pretty famous - at least in some circles. I definitely think it's notable. --TheOtherBob 03:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP As a Yalie myself, I can attest that Mory's is an important institution not only on the Yale campus but also nationally. It is an institution of American culture, given the world renown of the Whiffenpoofs's "Song". And I have been there when visiting celebrities and politicians have been in attendance, including NY Gov. George Pataki, President George (HW) Bush, senators, etc. It is a venerable national institution, surely of greater importance than the Elizabethan Club, and I strongly commend its merit in achieving a Wikipedia page. --User:rschon
1. The club/bar/restaurant is 150+ years old.
2. The club had 18,000 members in the 1960's.
3. The club was at one point the subject of a special act of the Connecticut General Assembly.
It does seem objectively notable, and worthy of inclusion. (Though I would certainly agree that it's not something everyone would have heard of or that you could easily find on a Google search - I by no means think this was a bad AFD to make (I might have made it myself if I hadn't heard of the place). I'm just strongly on the side of keep.)--TheOtherBob 04:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Book sources have been added to this page. By the way, this is getting completely out of hand. Clearly, notability is now obvious. User: Ckkgourmet

Mory's also happens to mentioned in the 20th century-Fox film "Winged Victory" btw.

Another case of a non-thinking delete nom --Ughmonster 09:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, especially the latter in the case. Daniel.Bryant 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOSEK

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is that a good argument for deletetion? I have also added a little bit of background material about MOSEK which people quite commonly ask us. Try search for cplex. This article is quite close to cplex article.--Erling D. Andersen 10:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Use in Denmark wasn't given as a reason for deletion. It was stated as a suggestion as to why it appears to be non notable when searching for English references to it via Google et. al. QuiteUnusual 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you search for MOSEK on Google MOSEK comes out as the first hit. And there many references to MOSEK. Also note MOSEK is listed on second order cone programming and linear programming.--Erling D. Andersen 10:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using google scholar I can find at least 15 scientific articles by third party citing MOSEK. (note: I started the MOSEK entry in wikipedia and I work for MOSEK). --Rsandvik 10:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you google for MOSEK, MOSEK is the first hit... that's hardly surprising is it given that it is a proper name? However, what you need for notability is references from other sites or works of authority to MOSEK. I can't find much from the UK computing press. Can you sign yours edits, it's good form. Thanks QuiteUnusual 08:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but if you look a little down the list you will find other sites (commercial, open source and academic) that refer to MOSEK. e.g YALMIP, PLEXOS, solver.com,COIN,CirclePatterns, gplab e.t.c. Mosek was also compared to CPLEX in the the newsletter, "OR/MS Today, June 2005 issue". --Rsandvik 10:23, 20 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 02:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable software. Article claims it is the first commercial product capable of solving a particular class of problem, but "first" notability in this case would apply to the first software to solve that problem, not the first one that's availbale commercially. —ptk✰fgs 03:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When a commercial product appears, it marks a shift in how important a problem is to other people. I think that is notable. CPLEX is not the first software to solve LP and it's existence has not been challenged. --Rsandvik 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete Cowman109Talk 23:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt delligatti

Delete. There are no sources to verify the existence of the individual, the band, or the restaurant. Google search brings up 16 unique results, all of which regard a living, breathing Matt Delligatti in West Virginia. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Maddox

Non-notable writer. The books mentioned in the article have only 6 and 2 ghits, respectively, two of which are the Wikipedia article and the author's website. hello,gadren 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: the userpage of the creator suggests that the present article was in fact written by M. J. Maddox herself and this also raises strong conflict of interest issues. Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soni (Indian family name)

Most of the articles in Category:Surnames are disambig pages or about famous/notable families (eg. Baca Family of New Mexico or Auerbach (family)). Most of the pages in Category:Indian family names are about casetes or gotras. Probably, there are some deletion-worthy articles as well -- they should go. utcursch | talk 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD G1. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow, Nebraska

Does this city even exist? A google search brings up pretty much zip. NMChico24 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete!!! My hometown —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alismatic (talk • contribs) .

Note User Alismatic is tagging this discussion for speedy deletion and has created another hoax article.--Húsönd 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Karnak Hates Everything Show

Absolutely nn sprite comic, found here. Manages less than 25 hits on Google. - Hahnchen 00:52, 19 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Rostamani Group

Disputed notability, placing here so debate can take place. I'm choosing to Abstain for now. Change to Delete, after researching I can find very little notable about this other than its size, and I don't think much more could be added to the article. Seraphimblade 04:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Seems notable enough, and certainly is a UAE conglomerate. --N Shar 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fairly large company as it seems. But if the article stays like that (one-line, hm.), a delete may be the solution. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Not listed in indices, not stock market listed, few (if any) mentions in published non-trivial works according to Google. Sure,it's quite big but doesn't seem very notable. QuiteUnusual 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Private companies are not listed in indices as they are not traded publicly. Being a private company alone doesn't exclude it from WP:CORP. Many extremely notable companies are private. --Marriedtofilm 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read beyond the first comma in the sentence that you are responding to. Uncle G 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please comprehend the response was specifically to the "Not listed in indices, not stock market listed" argument for deletion. We are not required to respond to entire contents of paragraphs ... and that we should assume in good faith we read them in their entirety. --Marriedtofilm 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That your response erroneously failed to address anything beyond the comma, where QuiteUnusual had already addressed the other criteria in WP:CORP, is indeed the very point that I made. It's rather amusing that you are asking that others comprehend that you ignored everything beyond the comma and responded to half a sentence with a point that had been already addressed in the other half. We already do. Uncle G 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The user stated "Not listed in indices, not stock market listed" as an argument for deletion along with what's beyond the comma. I choose to to counter what was specifically that argument. What's beyond the comma, "few (if any) mentions in published non-trivial works according to Google." is an additional point that the user was making. If you want to point out the fact I didn't respond to that second argument (which I assume in good faith is already apparent to the readers), go right ahead, but don't make a personal attack claiming I didn't read the whole thing. --Marriedtofilm 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. According to the company website, net assets are in excess of $550 million USD. One of the subsidiaries, Arabian Automotive Co, sounds fairly notable as a distributor of several major car marques. Website is very out of date though, so difficult to tell if company is still notable today. Given that the company is in private ownership, it's hardly surprising there's no stock market listing; that doesn't particularly make it non-notable. DWaterson 22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assets is not a measure of notability. Having a stock market listing is according to WP:CORP. QuiteUnusual 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of Information FYI, while net assets of a private company are not quite the same as the market cap of a publically traded company, note that a public company with less than US$2bn market cap is generally known in the finance world as a small cap company. Being in the $2bn to $10bn range is known as mid-cap. Large cap is >$10bn[20].This company's website says that its net asset worth is $1bn with not much debt... this most likely places it in the small cap range if it was publicly traded. Also, the UAE is a wealthy country, so it is not obvious that a <$2bn company is a dominant player. Also rough estimates for self-valuation by private companies which are not required to disclose any or verify (publicly audit) any financial information to the public should probably be considered an unreliable, self-publishing source for this particular kind of information Bwithh 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As anyone who regularly invests in stocks or stock mutual funds knows, publicly traded companies very frequently will have market cap values that are much higher than the companies' actual value (real assests). This is usually attributed to investor speculation. Comparing a publicly traded company's "market cap" to a privately held company's "assets" is like comparing apples to oranges. --Marriedtofilm 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not comparing apples to oranges, though they are different (and market cap value can be lower than the value of a company's "real assets"). Valuation of market cap or of assets is not primarily understood as the result of on the one hand, "speculation" or on the other, just "fire sale value" - its key that it must incorporate the expected future earnings of the combination of technical, human, and financial capital in place. A company's asset value doesn't just include the base price of tangible real assets. It's the market value of the tangible and intangible assets. Obviously if you fire the personnel, give up the goodwill, and sell off the equipment piece by piece, the "fire sale value" is going to be less than the sum of the parts. But we talking about the worth of a company, not a just a bunch of random stuff for sale. Anyway, my primary point was that a $1-2bn company is not that impressive. Bwithh 14:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comparing an unknown nonexistent "market cap" to the real "assets" of a private firm is not a correct method of gauging the scope of a company. As you said, the open market might value a company lower than a company's "real assets," as well has higher and sometimes several times higher. We just don't know. As this company is not publicly traded, any assumption on market cap value is guesstimation. --Marriedtofilm 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Impressive assets assuming above information is accurate, but the article itself makes no claim of notability, "number of employees" not being one of our criteria after all. -Elmer Clark 02:51, 20 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of data quality vendors

Jimbo proded this but the original author de-proded it, so I'm bringing this debate here. As I'm unfamiliar with the background of this article, I will take no sides in this debate. Scobell302 03:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lounge

Comic in question fails WP:WEB. It's hosted on Comic Genesis, but past precedent (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Eden) would suggest that it should be deleted if it fails to assert further notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oshawa Civic Band

Non-notable musical ensemble. Prod tag removed with no explanation. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax Basic

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software), also clear from uploaders contributions, and note on my talk page that comes under WP:Vanity. Camillus (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take2

no claims to notability, no sources to show such, history suggest a vanity piece so, at the moment, it looks like a delete... Marcus22 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'd like a chance to correct things for inclusion. I have reviewed the notability guidelines and this paragraph in particular: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field "

I am a painter, my artwork, inlfuence and contributions to the graffiti art movement in Chicago has been chronicled in numerous newspapers, graffiti magazines and online websites. For example:

Artwork is featured in numerous places online including:

  • Deschini International: Designer handbags sold around the world: http://www.deschini.com/
  • Artcrimes.com
  • meetingofstyles.com
  • Comments. Issues with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest here. Also, if deleted, suggest article be replaced with a redirect to Take Two (disambiguation). —Wrathchild (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take2: I'm no expert on sources, especially on US sources and/or graffiti art, so it would be good to hear from others about these. For me, at the moment, the two interviews do not look sufficient neither do the website references. The newspaper articles might be but they are, it looks, impossible to verify. (Anyone know otherwise?) My own feeling is that if sufficiently notable the article would have already been created and there would be no need to have created it yourself. That is the normal way of articles. It might be best to userfy the page and wait for your fame to reach others/spread further afield? I'm sure if that were to happen someone would recreate the article. Marcus22 19:10, 20 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Comments The Sun-Times article is available on Factiva, and it does speak about Take. Unfortunately, the Chicago Reader online archives only go back to 1988, so I can't check the second newspaper article. (But I suspect Take2 is telling the truth.)
I disagree with the above comment that "if sufficiently notable the article would have already been created." There are many clearly notable topics which still do not have articles, for any number of reasons. (To pick a Chicago-related topic, former Chicago Bear Chris Zorich, who was a household name in the 90's and generates 20K google hits, is still a red link.) However, I do agree that it's generally not a good idea for someone to write an article about himself. Zagalejo 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While self created articles are not an AUTOMATIC criteria for deletion, it is a red flag. As has been mentioned, if you are not notable enough for someone who never met you to write an article about you, you might not be notable for a wikipedia article. Still, SOME references have been provided, which is more than most self-promoted artists that try to get here Wikipedia. A google search turns up some mostly unreliable, self-published sites, but we do have this site which turns up, in turn, photocopies (copyvio anyone??? but still useful here!) of the actual newspaper articles mentioned above that review the work. Still, I am not sure we have enough here to meet two VERY important notability criteria: MULTIPLE sources and NONTRIVIAL coverage (that is, extensive coverage within the source). The MULTIPLE and NONTRIVIAL requirements of the primary notability crtieria to me would seem that we shouldn't need less than 5 minutes to read the entirety of the press coverage this subject has warrented. I was somewhat conflicted voting delete, but, while there is SOME reliable press coverage, it does not appear to be enough in either depth or bredth. --Jayron32 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Making your mark takes a bit more, I'm afraid. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a good rule of thumb that if nobody else thinks it's worth their while writing an article about you, then it's probably not worth your while either. BTLizard 10:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Obina 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — NN and per nom JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act

Second nomination. See the THOMAS search for this legislation It is 2 year old dead legislation. According to the prior nomination, it was a weak keep, and the closing admin noted that it should be renominated if the article could not be improved. The article has not been improved, and given the status of the legislation in question, stands NO chance of being improved. Please delete it. Jayron32 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax per CSD G1. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walawala Middle School

High school hoax located in town hoax (see Articles for deletion/Moscow, Nebraska). Húsönd 03:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but please see WP:CITE to cite sources in the article. W.marsh 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend Robotique

*delete a google search turns up only trivial mentions (i.e. "BOYFRIEND ROBOTIQUE present "English Lessons For The Foreign Artist" & "How Do You Feel" at the Market of Vain Desires...") that merely note where they are performing. There does NOT appear to be any critical review of their work. If no one in the media cares enough to review their work, how can they be notable? --Jayron32 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, no verification. Ex-Boyfriend Robotique, perhaps? "It's not me, it's you..." EVula 05:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. Google also returned nothing comprehensive about the artists. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated in my prod: "Non-notable performance troupe (150 Ghits); no sources to back up claim of being "thrown out of Canada."" ... discospinster talk 13:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: I am working on what you asked for. This link takes you to a review of a Boyfriend Robotique show http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=outabout&article=86 Also, this magazine features a set of images from another show www.psiloveyou-magazine.com So that's two reliable media sources. As for the other problems I have edited the page to include a line as to why they are notable (as per guidelines) and also have referenced the newspaper where I read about their deportation from Canada. I am new to wikipedia so please do forgive my lack of tech-savy. My point is simply that if this is to be an encyclopedia (and not just a high brow version of US Weekly) it really needs input on artists other than those who rotate heavily on MTV. I intend to get better at the technical side of wikipedia and contribute to the community information on the well known and less well known.Roderick P. Bruce 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Its a start. I am not changing my vote yet, but more of sources like this might get me to. Being "well known" or "pop culture" has nothing to do with a Wikipedia article. A subject must be notable. Read guidelines on notability. It expressly states that: " a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." In several places , you will see that notability is expressly NOT fame. If you want this article kept, continue to provide reliable sources to verify its notability. YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. Its not much, but you stand a better chance of keeping the article by providing these kinds of reliable sources than by appealing to people's sense of pity or justice, or by implying that wikipedia's only criteria is popularity. It isn't. Its notability. --Jayron32 04:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources I found a catalogue of images here www.images.ullirichter.com from a German photographer's site (he's a professional not an amateur or fan). Also at http://www.gayliverpool.com/homotopia.htm there is an article about an upcoming show and in the 'Liverpool Echo' (25/10/06) there is a discussion of this show again. There is also a brief article in 'Boyz' (16/03/06) detailing their appearance at a gallery opening in London. I really don't catalogue the amount of press they get but it seems ever with a little research that they're quite prolific.
  • Change vote to keep I have seen enough. It's getting better. Now that the references have been found, the original article needs to be edited, and the links provided either as inline references, or under the external link section. Reasearch is what this is all about, and it is obvious that research has been done, and evidence of notability has been found. These are honest-to-goodness reviews, and I see that as enough to satisfy WP:NN.. --Jayron32 01:29, 30 October 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, Relisting because sources were provided after everyone but Jayron commented. W.marsh 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by admin BanyanTree (reason: csd g10 - I'm getting no Google hits for the combination of names that aren't Wikipedia). Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. of America

Non-notable hate group. A Google search for "'SS of America' -wikipedia" yields 40 hits. My name yields 121. The references that do appear come from fringe-element newsletters, blogs, forums, and other non-notable media. Consequentially 05:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is my mistake. Still, they paint a pretty bland picture. The ADL and CDR websites -- the three two most reliable websites on search results -- refer to them only as a street gang, in reference to the Confederate Knights. The Public Eye article, also reliable, refers to their self-published notice in a Neo-Nazi zine. The remaining sources refer back to those three articles, or have nothing to do with the organization we're talking about. The last 20 search results are equal parts typos like "busine ss of america," or statements like "the Marines are the SS of America." So two minor references in lists of skinhead street gangs, a claim posted from their self-published zine, and typos. Consequentially 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I'm all for exposing Nazi thugs, but something about this doesn't seem right. No sources cited; a lot of personal attacks. Above comment is of course correct, notability depends on accurate resources which are not necessarily in themselves notable in the same sense. More information needed Emeraude 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability, QuiteUnusual 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Survivor: Cook Islands (Delete, not independently notable). —Centrx→talk • 05:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anh Tuan Bui

He should not have a page as he is not famous. Js1285 05:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There was more info & sources, but then JS1285 deleted it all right after putting up this notice. Plus, he's a world record holder. (I also think it's a bit early to put this back so soon after the previous AFD)
"trivial" being the operative word here Bwithh 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is now policy that everyone who has appeared on TV is worthy of an article. Otherwise, what else in this biography is so extraordinary that it makes the subject stand out? Emeraude 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be a heap more more stub articles on nn people if this extended to game show contestants ;). --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 08:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cao Boi already redirects to this article. Bwithh 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech given names

Per WP:WINAD and prior strong precedent, I have transwikied this article to wikt:Appendix:Czech given names, where it is more appropriate. Lists of names are not encyclopedic, but they do belong in Wiktionary, and that's where we have moved them before (e.g., see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names). This should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is adapted from what I wrote in the discussion of the similar article, List of Armenian given names, but it equally holds here.
How are lists definitely encyclopedic"? I couldn't agree less. Lists should have a place if, and only if, they are of a clearly defined finite content of things that actually belong together as a list. Examples might be 'List of countries in the European Union' or 'List of metallic elements' or 'List of best actor Oscars' (though even the last two are not necessarily worthy of their own page if they could be better included as part of articles on 'Elements' or 'Oscar winner' respectively). The list must belong together - it must have meaning AS A LIST. This list does not qualify - it must be totally impossible and certainly impractical to list EVERY Armenian given name, and even if it could be done, is it necessary? Let the Mormons collect names; Wikipedia is not a genealogy database.
User:Docu rather destroys his argument when he says "it's a careful selection." Precisely. Emeraude 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a list of first names, it's a list of Czech first names, sufficiently carefully made to be included in other Mediawiki projects. Not every list needs to be exhaustive, afterall, Wikipedia hasn't reached that point either  ;) -- User:Docu
  • Here I can say something. History of Czech given names could be interesting - which one's were popular in the past, what were the trends, what was the situation during communist regime, etc. Currently, official list of allowed names does exist (and a book listing them was published) but exceptions could be granted by request. Statistics of most popular names are here: for females, for males, most popular child names during recent years, list of allowed names online. There was a media splash when some "alternative" parents named their baby "Midnight Storm" and civil service forced them to pick something more common.
I am not principially against this kind of lists but I do not like copy-pasted collection of words from unknown source, with mistakes and without any context at all. If this is kept I am able to rewrite it, though. Pavel Vozenilek 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm writing a novel set in Prague and I'm finding that this is a very useful reference for me in coming up with character names. This is the kind of thing that wikipedia can do well and should do. Quality issues should be addressed by improving the quality, not by deleting the article. Donald Hosek 04:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep As a student of Czech, I find this page fascinating and educational. sanderlewis
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian given names

Per WP:WINAD and prior strong precedent, I have transwikied this article to wikt:Appendix:Armenian given names, where it is more appropriate. Lists of names are not encyclopedic, but they do belong in Wiktionary, and that's where we have moved them before (e.g., see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names). This should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are "lists definitely wikipedic"? I couldn't agree less. Lists should have a place if, and only if, they are of a clearly defined finite content of things that actually belong together as a list. Examples might be 'List of countries in the European Union' or 'List of metallic elements' or 'List of best actor Oscars' (though even the last two are not necessarily worthy of their own page if they could be better included as part of articles on 'Elements' or 'Oscar winner' respectively). The list must belong together - it must have meaning AS A LIST. This list does not qualify - it must be totally impossible and certainly impractical to list EVERY Armenian given name, and even if it could be done, is it necessary? Let the Mormons collect names; Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Emeraude
There may be a confusion about given names and surnames. Genealogy is mainly about the later. -- User:Docu
  • Keep. Agreed that lists are wikipedic. It helps identify Armenian names, besides there are English names on wikipedia, why not Armenian? You do not need EVERY Armenian name, the list is already pretty big and covers alot of the names used by the 7-8 million Armenians in the world. If it get's deleted and moved, then include all lists of given names. Thanks. Fedayee 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep Unless every single article within [[Category:Lists of given names]] is deleted I vote for a keep.--Eupator 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Given names is an important part of a culture. Also it would be a double standart to delete Armenian names list and keep others.--Hattusili 00:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article shouldn't be deleted, but it may need to be moved to Wiktionary. This, however, requires a different tag, not the deletion one. -- Augustgrahl 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree that which names belong to which cuture and language are important and useful information. I suggest the article needs ekpansion instead to make it more informative - list meanings, etymology of the names etc. -- Athanatis 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus Information could be merged as mentioned though. W.marsh 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March_Book

Non-notable book by a non-notable writer. Author's Wiki article is also being considered for deletion as he is a non-notable writer and both this book entry and his Wiki biography appear to be written by himself or someone very close to him -- i.e. no objective or unbiased sources. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion.

  • Delete - My Google search returned nothing related. Fails WP:NOR. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (possibly merge to Jesse Ball. Not so fast. There are valuable concerns with the write-up but as far as evaluating the notability of poets, I think we can all agree that the Google test is likely to fail miserably. The book has been published by a fairly solid publisher and has had some non-trivial reviews, possibly enough to build a decent article on reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made comments on Mr. Ball on the deletion discussion page for his main page. You can see them here. Ethan L. Schreiber 21:49, 29 October 2006 (EDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. None of the keep votes give a policy or guideline reason for keeping the article, nor do they address the concerns raised by the nominator. --Coredesat 04:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Management

Article by Daniel Odry promoting his management philosophy. Is it original research? Does it actually say anything about sustainability? (Note that it is not a copyvio - the PDF from which it is taken includes an explicit copyright release.) -- RHaworth 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for opinions. We are dealing with facts here. Please see WP:WWIN. Cheers -- Imoeng 09:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please express your definition of opinion and fact concerning this matter. Please give some examples of proof, that can show that this is an opinion and not a commonly shared definition or fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauk (talk • contribs)
I was referring to the comment above me "People with differing opinions can edit the article and make additions...". Wikipedia is not the place to write opinions. Cheers -- Imoeng 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This articel contents publish reasearch results being published and accepted by the sustainability community. I think to edit this article to fullfill the meaning of Sustainability Management would enable more than to talk about deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgegusch (talk • contribs) — Rgegusch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete I believe it's a widely shared definition. K. Herrmann — This comment was left by User:84.190.213.72 (talk • contribs)
  • Do Not Delete This article is part of a research and gives some interesting and precise information concerning "sustainability". M.Mijajlović — This comment was left by Mijajlom (talk • contribs)— Mijajlom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete I think this article gives a good insight and interesting facts concerning the connection of management and sustainability . A. König — This comment was left by User:130.149.137.114 (talk • contribs)
  • Do Not Delete Sustainability Management is a concept that support the implementatio of sustainability in companies. It makes sense to leave this entry. M.Vanegas — This comment was left by User:130.149.137.53 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete Delete because it's an essay/original research. Strong because of one of the most pathetic attempts at sockpuppetry in recent memory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement delete per Andrew Lenahan. This is pure bollocks, intolerably vague and abstract: "The main task of Sustainability Management is the set-up and maintenance of a modern corporate culture with social contribution for achievement as superior leadership guideline." It's unlikely this could ever be rewritten in plain English because people who write in this manner will not, and those who write plain English will find there's "no 'there' there" in the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Andrew Lenahan and Smerdis of Tlön. I shouldn't have tried to read and understand the article, but I did, and now my head hurts. Edward Wakelin 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and Andrew. -- Vary | Talk 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and original research. (Plus the articles sustainability and sustainable development cover the topic already.)--Ed (Edgar181) 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the opposite of all the reasons given above under Do Not Delete. Uncyclopaedic. OR. etc etc. Emeraude 17:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there may be certain strains in the debate of sustainability and sustainable development regarding sustainability of commerce and the role of corporations, these concepts are very far removed from the original research found in this article. --The Way 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Way. All above IPs are from the same location. Michaelas10 (T|C) 09:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not DeleteSeems not as riginal research, maybe add more references. Sunny — This comment was left by User:88.73.52.144 (talk • contribs)
  • Not Delete The article shows the fact that process and structure of organizational communications and interactions presupposes one another. No organization can reproduce a sutible superior leadership guideline (structure) without the acknowledgement of the activities of their stakeholders (process). The suggestion that education (especially adult education) is impotant to compile information about organizational processes is fitting with the latest state of reasearch to the concept of employability. Nils B. — This comment was left by User:217.233.20.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete I see evidence from Google searching that this is a real buzz-word in corporate management circles. I didn't find any reliable sources that we could use to have a decent article. While I suspect they exist; this text is not a real help to us. GRBerry 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This article gives a simple overview of Sustainability Management and is therefore great help for even those who have nothing to do with the matter, but want to study further. I consider this article an approved opinion, in no sense an original research! Quotations and further reading links are given. so why not keep it in? This article may need to be expanded but not deleted. [[[sandkamper]]]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as no context, non-notable by Nihonjoe. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard MacManus

Non-notable blogger, one-line article, little to no additional secondary-source material seems available. Seraphimblade 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ghost in the Shell. --Ezeu 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armed suit

Contested prod. Prod rational "fancruft. far too in-universe, and I doubt this will ever be "fixed"". I would prefer delete but some merging might be acceptable. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep; tagged for spam clean-up. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NIIT

Reads like advertising copy or extreme fancruft. --Saganaki- 06:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 09:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grou.ps

Non-notable website with claims of notability being alexa ranking and membership numbers, though the numbers are not backed with supporting evidence –– Lid(Talk) 07:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although it is true that it has 93,000 alexa rank here. However with no sources (I have Googled and most are blogs), this fails WP:NOR. Cheers -- Imoeng 07:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blog coverage means a lot. See http://technorati.com/search/grou.ps— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentblanc (talk • contribs)
Comment For Wikipedia purposes, blog coverage means very little. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Hagiography and possible autobiography. Apparently being edited/created by one user using a series of differnt anon IPs. History shows editing by a series of IP addresses, each address has only been used to edit the biography. Author has highly detailed knowledge. If this is not outright autobiography then it's at least someone who knows the author down to the contents of his CV Saganaki- 07:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis person seems notable, and the statements seem verifiable. If the article is too biased, and there is too much original research etc., then the solution is to boldly edit it, not to delete it.Obina 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and pare down extensively - I'm concerned that the lead paragraph at least may be a copy-and-paste job of bios elsewhere. But he's obviously notable; a very quick Google search turns up quite a bit of reference, including this one from PBS, the first one that caught my eye. Lots to work with here, it just needs a lot of work. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys: Here's the story; I appreciate your sage advice/help. Some time ago, I was alerted to a Wiki bio posted on me that was very short and almost totally in error, and what was marginally correct was 30 years old -- there was little reference to anything I had done in recent years -- in other words, an embarrassing distortion. Friends, associates were emailing me -- I host a PBS series, Closer To Truth, on the implications of frontier science, www.pbs.org/closertotruth. What to do? So I added accurate, recent material, perhaps in the Wiki Spirit too much (which I've just taken out). Furthermore, a recent posting criticized my admittedly controversial biography of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, which was the #1 best-selling nonfiction book in China in 2005 and was published worldwide by Random House / Crown, “as being propaganda and largely untrue, having been commissioned by Jiang Zemin himself”. This calumny is wholly untrue, but in the Wiki Spirit, I did not delete its false and scurrilous accusation (almost anything related to Chinese politics, I understand, can become emotional and there are diverse points of view, all of which should be heard), but rather in response I quoted myself from Foreign Affairs magazine, a most reliable source, in answering the same charge. Seeing and appreciating your comments, I’ve just tried to pare down the bio, make it more NPOV, an acronym I’ve just learned. I’m an amateur at this; I'll happily have Hands Off, if’s that’s the policy, so long as inaccuracies are not promulgated and defacing (however subtle) is not permitted. Much of this material on me can be confirmed on the Internet (though some of the bios are outdated). In conclusion, I love Wikipedia, appreciate your commitment and vigilance, want to conform, but do not want errors of any kind to remain nor inserted biased commentary to go answered. Help, my friends! Robert Lawrence Kuhn 29 October 2006.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Laird

This nomination concerns Jamie Laird and Anthony Mason (footballer), footballers who have never played in a professional league, the minimum requirement set forth by WP:BIO. Get rid of the pictures as well. Punkmorten 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Scallen

Questionable notability. ghits: [21]. NMChico24 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Delete. Yup, that was Shawn Scallen, he also e-mailed me to ask me not to try to list him on here. (I penned the article.) Well, I wash my hands of it, someone can delete it. Dan Carkner 06:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of candies

Contested prod. Unmaintainable list with arbritary definitions (why only some mints and who decides what is gourmet) Nuttah68 10:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syncopated Software Development Corporation

non-notable Firien § 10:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not in alexa, near 0 ghits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OddGods. --Firien § 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OddGods

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syncopated Software Development Corporation Firien § 10:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not in alexa, near 0 relevant ghits. Firien § 10:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This has not been confirmed in the form of an official press release or announcement from Microsoft. Until then, the article can only be speculation, which does not belong here. --Coredesat 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 3

I put a ProD tag on this article, but it was removed by an anonymous user. This article is about something that will not be out for a long time, possibly 5 or more years, so at this moment, there is no information "set in stone," thus fails WP:NOT. All that is on this page is pure speculation and quotes that "hint" that it's under developement. I believe this article should be deleted now, and made later on, when some decent information comes out. SuperDT 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I just put heaps of new stuff in, somewhat removing the crystal ball element. The 2012 olympics isn't coming for another 6 years but it's still got a page. Once a product has been confirmed (which this has) any and all specualation by first party high-level employees becomes part of the consoles history. I suggest that if you annoyed with annonymous users editing the page with things like "woo!" you put some low level protection on it. Anonymous user. 27 October 2006.
  • Comment Next time, type Keep instead of Don't Delete; that sounds kinda odd :) Second, I encourage you to take a look at the 2012 Olympics page. That page has a lot of facts and current developements, such as the bidding, the financing, what sports will be in it, etc. The Xbox 3 page has naming speculation, a "hint" at developement, something of a "confirmation(if you'd even call it that)" that the hint is true, and something about voice recognition. An article this is not. All this will lead to is most likely vandalism, loads of speculation, and it will become a crystal ball, which as UtherSRG pointed out, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

SuperDT 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. It is confirmed through my sources that work at microsoft.

Comment Please sign your posts with four ~'s next time. Anyways, just because your "sources" have confirmed it, doesn't mean it deserves an article just yet. Like stated above, until Microsoft officially releases details, this article will be almost 100% speculation. Once when the time comes for this article to come into existence(in like 2-3 years or so), and Microsoft gives more details, we can always use your help making this article better; we'll need help sifting through rumors and such :) SuperDT 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The information does not qualify for its own page, but it is also not entirely false as it did not come from the source. But, considering that it won't come out for some, it may also warrant a deletion until it is officially announced. User:Lord Hawk 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. As others have said: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. No merging is needed either. RobJ1981 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bern

Rescued from {{prod}}, reason given as "very little content, but arguably asserts notability". It needs a wider audience for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalang Road

Street in suburban Melbourne. No claims to notability. QazPlm 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as unverifiable. --Coredesat 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmbot

No independant, reliable, non-trivial evidence of notability, or even of its claims about the software. Googling the name, filtering out hits from Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the official site and forums gets 622 hits, 150 unique. Drat (Talk) 11:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch irregular verbs

Nothing more than a list of words. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Suggesting a transwiki to Wiktionary. MER-C 11:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that link at the bottom. Changed to delete.--Húsönd 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Luna Santin 09:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Aki

  • Keep Please keep. 31 October 2006 (UTC) All of the content is available from reputable online news sources: eg. British Broadcasting Corporation, the London Guardian etc.

Please sse this news link http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&resnum=0&q=%22purple%20aki&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn

  • Comment - "Cat Stuck Up Tree" - that's a little unfair. This guy likes to measure muscle in some sexually perverted way. He has been infamous in the NW of England for some years. a *REAL* Urban Legend, not an Urban Myth.
  • Weak Keep. This man has made the national news, and is now known far outside Widnes. Now he belongs to the world. I've gone through the article and made it as good as it is ever likely to be; the local trivia was fascinating but the only sources I could find were forum posts, blog entries etc, which are insubstantial. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs rewriting with a number of additions, placed into it. There freely available pictures of Akinwale Arobieke on the internet, as well as numerous news reports. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6087922.stm from 27/10/06 refers to his release and conditions. He is also a wide spread 'Urban Legend' from the North West of england and until his arrest following the harrassment of over 123 persons, and his sentence of 31 indefinate restraining orders. He has been in Prison for the last 3 years I believe

  • Comment - I do. And I would still maintain that he isn't notable. The article was also full of dubious information with nothing to back it up (e.g. "he chased a kid on to the railway lines in New Brighton and electrocuted him but was found not guilty of manslaughter"). Happily, the article has been cleaned up substantially since the AfD, but what verifiable information there is, is contained in scant few online news stories and is barely enough to make more than a stub. There are hundreds of crimes (and sex crimes) committed every day and Wikipedia doesn't carry articles on them. Equally there are dozens of Urban Legends like the story of "Purple Aki" and Wikipedia doesn't carry articles on all of those. This story is nothing special - perhaps the most notable thing about it is that he was never convicted of anything more than harrassment and intimidation; despite the legend that built up around his activites. Purple Aki is not the Yorkshire Ripper. He is not Fred West. He is barely a footnote. All IMHO. Marwood 09:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Put Purple Aki into google...end of SenorKristobbal 10:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Barely enough to make more than a stub."? Are you proposing the deletion of all stub articles then? Also, you note that there are many other urban legends like that of Purple Aki, but how many of these other urban legends have been proven as being based on a real figure? It's very interesting as an example of an urban legend which many believed to be purely false until the man himself was captured.--83.216.157.38 11:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fair comment. I wouldn't propose the deletion of all stubs, no. However the "stub" exists as a placeholder for a topic that needs expansion. I would contend that there isn't enough verifiable material to write a full article on Purple Aki - it is all rumour and hearsay. It looks like consensus is "keep" though, so I hope someone will find the time to create a good factual article on the subject. IMO, however, it can't be done. Marwood 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Psychos

A hooligan firm that does not assert its importance, and it also fails WP:CORP. – Elisson • T • C • 11:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this page be edited to redirect to City Psychos: From the Monte Carlo Mob to the Silver Cod Squad page. Furthermore, the City Psychos: From the Monte Carlo Mob to the Silver Cod Squad page should, in turn, include a brief statement as to why it is a notable piece of literature. -- MLD · T · C · @:  15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as dicdef. No strong arguments to keep --Ezeu 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active couple

This article is a dictionary definition, and can hardly be expanded. Any page that needs the dance term "Active Couple" can specify what it means in one sentence. Yellowdesk 05:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Hmmm, that is not what I expected "Active Couple" to mean. That does not appear to be dictionary content. It needs some cleanup and some sources but it does appear to be encylopedic content. Chris Kreider 12:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the first comment. It is too trivial and can be completely covered in any article where it is needed.--JBH23 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — If someone is looking for the definition of the word, and types it in to wikipedia, they won't find anything if, as the nom suggests, we put a sentence in articles referring to it (apart from the search - hardly reliable). The reason for the weak bit in my opinion is that it deperately needs sources and a cleanup (and perhaps expansion). Martinp23 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a word. It is two words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary where one looks up the definitions of words. That's Wiktionary's job. Wikipedia is about subjects, the people/places/events/concepts/things that the words denote. One would come to Wikipedia to find out what the concept of an active couple in dancing was.

      The question of whether there should be an individual article is determined by whether there exists source material yielding scope for expansion beyond a perpetual "The active couple is the couple that is active at any time." stub. Saying that it "needs sources and expansion" is not good enough to counter the argument that it is an unexpandable perpetual stub. One has to actually demonstrate that there are sources and that scope for expansion from stub status exists. Uncle G 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change name? I had a look at what links here and discovered it occurred in Scottish_country_dance as >>"top couple" (or active couple)<< - I've never heard of active couple (I thought it was electronics) but I'm very familiar with top couple and I think it is a very useful term to put in. Now if someone could tell me what the top couple is in an eightsome real and how that relates to other forms of dances it will be interesting and warrant an entry. I've only ever heard of it as "top couple" so I suggest changing it to that. --Mike 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to me that this is a dictionary definition, fine for Wiktionary but not for Wikipedia. Can be found in articles on dances. Unless there's more to the concept then is hinted at here, I say delete. --The Way 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banghawk

Delete- Doesn't cite sources. Should really be part of the mohawk article. And I've never ever heard of this term before. It's usually called a chelsea mohawk from what I've heard. Lyo 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable/hoax. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Haseltine

This appears to be a hoax topic. WmLGann 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 09:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Stern

The subject of this article is asserted, without verification, to have co-founded an organization. He is not especially notable within his community. NatusRoma | Talk 05:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. NatusRoma | Talk 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - At least attempts to assert notability, citing an award, for which there is a wiki article. Just on the edge of keep though and better to err on the side of caution.Chris Kreider 12:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Actually, it doesn't even say he co-founded an organisation, he 'assisted' two others. The award is not exactly a Nobel prize is it? So he organises quizzes. As does the barman at my local pub. Emeraude 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to both of the above comments: The Carper Award is (probably) more notable than any of its recipients, and is certainly more notable than Gaius Stern, so having an article on the award doesn't mean that we should have an article on its recipients. Even among the U.S. quizbowl-playing community, Gaius Stern has little notability either as a player or as an organizer. That said, the quizzes that Gaius Stern organizes are more notable than the ones that the barkeep at Emeraude's local pub organizes. NatusRoma | Talk 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. o_O Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

groin_attack

Groin attack was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-30. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groin attack.

This article has literally no point. Who could possibly be searching for information on people getting struck in the groin? Juansidious 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Useful article with useful information. SuperDT 13:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge useful data into other articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep, it is actually notable both in terms of boxing rules and as a staple of physical comedy. Koweja 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I gotta go with keep. For some reason or another, a couple of months ago I read this article. I forget why but, I dont see why it needs to be deleted. Chris Kreider 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found this page linked from another page, and found it's information useful and well structed. No need to delete this at all. DeadxBoi 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has as much merit for inclusion as any other martial arts technique, and being revered in juvenile behavior has no bearing to its legitimacy. If I remember right, a few styles do emphasize this (and other "dirty" techniques). hateless 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not one single source has been cited, except a Bible verse. I have no problem with the topic choice, just with the quality of the article. In my short time on Wikipedia I have seen several really bad articles about very appropriate subjects. When they get nominated for AfD someone usually comes along and works on the articles to make them better-- improved grammar, more neutral language, some really excellent citations, etc. That hasn't happened with the poor little defenseless groin attack. This is a very readable article, but we have no way of knowing if it is just original research or worse, a copyright violation. Unless there is a real threat of deletion I doubt that anyone will come along and clean up the problems. How long has it been without a cleanup and a fixup even after it was called to everyone's attention? If no one's going to give it the much-needed improvements it shouldn't stay here. Notability isn't the only criterion. I'd wager any one of the men on Wikipedia who has ever been a victim of a groin attack is going to urgently insist that it was notable.OfficeGirl 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD is not cleanup, and {{sofixit}} applies. If you want the article free of original research, take pages 70/72/147/194 of ISBN 0804818762, pages 3–4 of ISBN 1581601387, page 40 of ISBN 0275958620, and page 31 of ISBN 087364168X in hand, and make it free of original research yourself. Uncle G 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It should have been on cleanup notice, but I don't see that it has. The article is a mess. I am not the appropriate person to write for this article. It appears that no one is available to make the article suitable for keeping on Wikipedia regardless of the notability of the subject. When someone writes an article on this subject with proper research and properly cited sources, I'll be strongly in favor of keeping it. Until then, it doesn't belong here.OfficeGirl 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For those who have been smote upon the testes, there are few articles more vital -- nay, crucial-- that the so-nominatated groin attack writeup. While the great wikimasses ceaselessly toil over the finer points of such essentials as Batarang, the Holodeck, and the Clone Wars (all certain topics of great, enduring legacies), it has fallen to a select few of the moast dedicated scholars whom have not failed to un-neglect this non-fictional topic of ancient and modern relevance. --Ghetteaux 14:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amazing how a debate can rise over such a topic. As for links...Are they really necessary? If so, google "groin attack" and put the top five links up.--AeomMai 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page is utterly hilarious - but it might be useful to some people. 69.138.61.168 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Groin attacks are important in self defense no? Is there no way people could link to some sort of self defense site or something? Chewbacca1010 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake 13

Article does not establish encyclopedic notablity -- it's a lake made by a dam, just like tens of thousands of similar lakes. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It seems like a lake should stay. Per WP:AFDP, "Landmarks (i.e. lakes, mountains, etc.) are notable." And since the the lake is rather sizable - 95 acres is pretty big - it's more than somebody's backyard pond. Looks pretty impressive in satellite photos [24] --Marriedtofilm 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to regular Delete. Keeping this would create a precedent to allow every single artificial pond to have its article. Not even Central Park's artificial lakes, which are certainly more notable than this one, have articles.--Húsönd 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A 95-acre lake is not at all notable as a geographic feature. Doesn't appear to have any other notability in terms of location, use, etc. And apparently it's not even important enough to have a real name. :) --Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more a pond than a lake - 95 acres is about 1/4 mile across. Not notable per Ed. Bpmullins 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a small, un-named, man made lake does not cut it as a geographic feature. Nuttah68 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no consensus among the Wikipedia community regarding how small a lake should be to be deleted and, even if there was, I suspect that this one would pass the test. Overall, if a government has bothered to call it a lake, it seems to be worthy of inclusion if verifiable. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For all those voting to keep, if we reduce this article to what is verifiable from the only source provided, we are left with the statement "Lake 13 is a lake located in Surrey township, Clare County, Michigan. The lake spans about 95 acres (384,000 m²)." None of the rest of the article is verifiable from the source provided. Further, the name is ambiguous, there are not only two other lakes named "Lake 13" in the state of Michigan, there are three others in Minnesota (as well as two others named "Thirteen Lake". I am usually extremely inclusive when it comes to geographical features, but this lake is non-notable in the extreme. And considering that the only source provided is an image from a real estate agency, I have to question whether there may be an element of self-promotion involved. older ≠ wiser 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (already merged). --Ezeu 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Cities of Quincy, Illinois

  • DELETE: I put the merge up a few weeks ago and I believe that The Sister City's should be labeled in the City's article. I put a Sister Cities section in the article and now there is no need for this article. (Tigerghost 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Ezeu 21:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagles (UK band)

This band is hardly notable Me and my robot 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just short of a speedy nomination from me. Author at least tried to establish notability (i think they failed) but still, at least made the effort. downgrade to Weak Delete, retract my speedy comment. Perhaps was too hasty with that comment. - A change again, after revieiwing the article again and seeing some expansion, I cant justify a delete. KeepChris Kreider 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Chris Kreider 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep This is the Ron Grainer group of the early 60s, and while probably not immediately familiar to 2006 American listeners, is/was certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes probably it is notable (I was born in 90, I don't know the band :P). But sources are highly needed here. As people like me do not know the notability. Cheers -- Imoeng 12:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on expanding it. they're absolutely notable, they were a major-label act in their day, released records in both the UK and US, and worked with loads of notable artists including Del Shannon, Stevie Wonder, and Roy Orbison. They pass WP:MUSIC with flying colours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time_Based_Effects

This is non-encyclopaedic and reads like an instruction manual. Andymarczak 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSP (Firmware)

This is a unencyclopaedic, non-notable, unreferenced link-farm to game mod downloads for the PSP. Was tagged as {{db-spam}}, but Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · logs) declined, saying "not really an advert, more of a how-to list for modding, feel free to take it to AfD" in the edit summary. As nominator, strong delete as a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not - a deposit of random links to downloads for mods. Daniel.Bryant 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep; please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Boys' School

(1) Following a Lexis-Nexis search, this school does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial works which would indicate notability. For this reason, delete.

(2) Strangely enough, I can't find an inspection report on this school (I thought all UK schools had one). But even if there is one, such a report would not indicate notability. In general, the existence of non-trivial third-party sources shows that the outside world (as represented by the publisher of the source) deems the subject notable, hence we Wikipedians consider it notable enough for inclusion. But an inspection report on a school isn't published because its publisher, or anybody, deems the school notable, it's published because schools are accountable to parents. So an inspection report is not enough to show that a school is notable.

(3) This school even appears to fail the overly inclusive criteria of WP:SCHOOL. Now, before someone says "But WP:SCHOOL suggests merging, not deleting," note that my main reason to delete (1) does not rely on WP:SCHOOL, which anyway does not enjoy consensus approval. I mention that this school fails WP:SCHOOL only to bolster the argument for non-notability. Pan Dan 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Yea, it may not be notable, and probably not notable enough to keep. Right on the line I think even though great arguments posted for the delete. still Have to agree with the delete but only weakly. Chris Kreider 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding inspection reports in UK schools, you need to know that each of the constituent parts of the UK has slightly different education systems. While it is true that inspection reports are published for all state schools in England and Wales (and I believe also in Scotland), I do not know that this is the case in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a Wiki user from there can let us know. Emeraude 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being new, I suspect what the above are saying is that if the entry were in another entry, like the local town, it might be alright, but on its own it isn't notable enough! --Mike 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that this school, which has existed 40+ years is suffering from being able to establish notability. Unfortunately, that is the situation for most Northern Irish schools where, due to political sensitivities, most schools do not even have their own website to sing their praises. If it helps, here is an article from the Times Edducational Supplement about a teaching method devised by a teacher at the school, http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2093130 . Nuttah68 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator (excellently) states more than I ever could. -- Kicking222 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit that it is kind of refreshing to see people who nominate schools for deletion do their research beforehand. Likewise, I'm going to hold off on "voting" until I do a bit of digging. JYolkowski // talk 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, subject of multiple nontrivial independent coverage such as the government inspections in 1998 [25] and 2005 [26], Raising Standards In Special Education Provision In St Josephs Boys Secondary School Londonderry. A gratuitously brutal nomination. Kappa 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gratuitously brutal"? I would've said "thorough." I made the points I did in my nom because those issues have come up before in school AfD's. And indeed, my point (2) is an argument why the sources you provide don't show notability. Pan Dan 15:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do want to congratulate you for finding those reports. I guess my problem was searching for "st josephs boys school" instead of "st josephs secondary school." Pan Dan 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of the inspection data, reports and Times Educational Supplement article on the school. Nuttah68 08:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times Supplement article is not "on the school." The school is at least 2 degrees removed from the subject of the article, which is, to boil it down, about field trips. The "Spooker Prize" is only mentioned as an example. Further, I think that the Spooker Prize can only charitably be called a "teaching method," as you call it above. (It's taking kids to a cemetary and having them write or tell stories about it.) Neither the Spooker Prize nor its inventor, Sinead McCrystal, justifies an article about this school. Pan Dan 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 15:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logic escapes me. Pan Dan 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, the argument has been put forward so many times on so many AfDs that it gets tedious to continually trot it out. Nominating these articles is utterly pointless and a waste of everybody's time, as even the most fanatical deletionist must have realised by now. It has got to the stage when deletionist dogma has overruled common sense, and that is not beneficial to Wikipedia in any way. We are eventually going to have to agree to disagree, since 99% of articles on secondary schools will be kept. -- Necrothesp 02:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, so you want to argue on the basis of precedent. But you can't conclude from precedent that high schools are notable. Any kind of AfD precedent tells us what actually happened to articles, not whether the subjects of the articles were in fact notable. You also can't conclude from precedent that high school noms are pointless. Because, looking at schoolwatch, I see that 4 recent high school AfD's resulted in no consensus and 1 in a merge. From my point of view, folks who flood flooding these AfD's with groundless keep votes are those who are is "not beneficial to Wikipedia." In cases where the delete voters have good arguments and the keep voters have strength in numbers, the result should be delete. Pan Dan 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm arguing on the basis of people wasting all our time by continually nominating articles that are obviously almost certainly going to be kept. The arguments for keeping high school articles been made again and again by "folks like me" and endlessly rehashing them for "folks like you" is getting tedious. Oh, and incidentally, before you level accusations about my beneficialness to Wikipedia I suggest you check my edit record. -- Necrothesp 16:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whew, where to start? (1) I don't doubt the greatness of your edit record. I doubt the benefit of voting in AfD's without giving a good reason. (2) Even though I think your vote is pointless without giving a reason, I withdrew my reference to "you" in my comment because I didn't want to get personal. You changed my comment back, and that's not cool. (3) If you have actual arguments to make as to why this school is notable, please make them even if it would be tedious to do so. I've made the arguments in my nom many times before, and yes it was a little tedious to make them yet again, but I had to do it. If you're too tired to make arguments you shouldn't be voting. Pan Dan 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right, first of all, I didn't change your comment at all. I replied to what I saw on my screen at the time and I did not get an edit conflict notice. Why on earth would I change your comment? Do I have a history of changing people's comments? Second, I shall write what I choose in an AfD. The closer will make his or her own decision as to the validity of the comments. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Yes, really; even if it conflicts with yours. You also seem to think this is a vote; it is not. AfDs don't work that way. -- Necrothesp 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • (1) I'll accept that a software glitch or a very slow page update is responsible for my comment getting changed back from this to this when you replied to it. If you didn't knowingly change it, I apologize. (2) You're entitled to state your keep opinion, and I'm entitled to challenge it for being groundless. A vote without a good reason is no help to the closer who's trying to reach a final decision. Pan Dan 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to Kappa for bringing to my attention that it's also called St. Joseph's Secondary School. But I still don't see any non-trivial sources for this school under that name. Pan Dan 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The school has no non-trivial sources for it under either name so it doesn't meet even the most basic notability criterion. The school makes no other claims of notability whatsoever. JoshuaZ 20:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources exist to verify an article on this topic. A merge might be appropriate per the WP:SCHOOL proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least I can demonstrate that the school exists. I looked it up at 192.com and got an address and a phone number. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The school's web site is a student presentation about Du Pont rather than the school. Perhaps the company is a significant local employer. I added the local school board's page about the school. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not asserted. Schools not inherently notable.AKAF 14:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply existing is not enough, contrary to what some people imply. This school has nothing remarkable, nothing that sets it apart from any and avery other school. Since I don't feel that all schools are inherently notable (why should they?), this one has no reason to have its own article anyumore than an average person has. No verifiable non-trivial coverage for the school (not some tangential coverage, directory entries, local newspapers listing some school party, or inspection reports please, I've had enoug hof those in many school articles). Fram 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond the inherent potential notability that all secondary schools possess, this article has been greatly improved from the point at which the AfD was created (again, thanks to TruthbringerToronto), and will only benefit from further improvement and expansion. Alansohn 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The school appears to be located in an economically deprived area, and for a number of reasons it is unlikely to generate the same proportion of notable alumni as an independent or selective school. There is some risk that insisting on a rigorous proof of notability will tend to exclude schools in economically deprived areas. Such schools often serve a more ethnically diverse population. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And this matters why? If less economically well off schools are less likely to be notable, oh well. We don't affirmative action for notability. JoshuaZ 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • TruthbringerToronto, I have seen you recently suggest "keep on an article because it was a selective school, and now you suggest "keep" because it is not a selective school... Fram 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per arguments above!! Audiobooks 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons stated by nominator. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly misses WP:N. —ptk✰fgs 22:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, or failing that merge per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 05:49, 1 November 2006
  • Keep a good article!! Audiobooks 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

— Audiobooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (stricken as a duplicate comment)

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Witch Project

After months, still only one independent source of proof of notability. Multiple sources are needed. Many claims are not backed up. The title gets only 87 unique hits when you filter out the official site and wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drat (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete - Seems spamish. Not that notable either, just a fan site. How many people, games places have fan sites? Def not for wikipedia. Chris Kreider 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong. I respect what these guys have done, their achievements in finding such stuff. But there needs to be more reliable, third party, etc. etc. etc. coverage to justify their presence here.--Drat (Talk) 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. tgies 08:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing Vote. Although this article needs to have the crap cleaned out of it for sure. DietLimeCola 13:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The site's discoveries were mentioned in numerous video game magazines (Nintendo Power, etc). Much more notable than most fansite cruft. --- RockMFR 14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He's right actually, although the Rare Witch Project wasnt credited for finding the codes, their discoveries were mentioned. Chagning my vote back to strong keep. Heres the list of the more popular codes they found. [27]. Heres the full list of codes found in the game. [28]. The only ones they didnt find were as follows:
  • CHEATGIVETHEBEARLOTSOFAIR Infinite Air
  • CHEATBANJOBEGSFORPLENTYOFEGGS Infinite Eggs
  • CHEATAGOLDENGLOWTOPROTECTBANJO Infinite Gold Feathers
  • CHEATLOTSOFGOESWITHMANYBANJOS Infinite Lives
  • CHEATNOWYOUCANFLYHIGHINTHESKY Infinite Red Feathers
  • BRLGOEULDFEAEGTHGERS 200 eggs
  • CHEATANENERGYBARTOGETYOUFAR 8 Immediate Honeycombs
  • CHEATDONTBEADUMBOGOSEEMUMBO 99 Mumbo Tokens
  • BIGBOTTLESBONUS A combination of the other bottles
  • BOTTLESBONUSTWO Big arms & legs
  • BOTTLESBONUSONE Big Head
  • BOTTLESBONUSFIVE Big heads & feet
  • NOBONUS Cancels effects of codes.
  • BOTTLESBONUSFOUR Kazooie has big head & wings
  • BOTTLESBONUSTHREE Small head & Tall body
  • WISHYWASHYBANJO Turns Banjo into Washer
  • BLUEEGGS Maximum number of eggs is 200
  • REDFEATHERS Have a maximum of 100 red feathers
  • GOLDFEATHERS Maximum 20 Golden Feathers

All the rest listed on that page were found by The Rare Witch Project. DietLimeCola 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible delete. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:ORG. "Discovering" cheat codes for a single game does not, by any means, make a website notable. Also, technically the game creators were the first to "discover" the cheat codes, as they were the ones who put them in the game.--TBCΦtalk? 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Merge relevant info) seems best, as long as main article refers to and links to the site. The site itself is not notable enough for encyclopedic attention, even if it is a reference source for other articles. Even if the site covered all things Rare, it might not be enough, but one game? Durty Willy 15:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete The site is not notable and the site's server host suspened the account. Also this article has been recreated many times by vandals from that site, In my opinion this article should be Delete Protected --Stylesr 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumbering

Description of a practical joke. Claimed to be widespread but author has not managed to provide refs so it is just something made up in school one day. -- RHaworth 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not Delete!; please don't delete this article. The term 'cucumbering' is a widespread practice in the top end areas of Australia, due to our superbly suitable climate to the drying of cucumber on possessions. User_talk:Mikeslunchboxisgay, 12.17, 2 November 2006
  • Do not Delete!; I love cumcumbering, and if i'm not mistaken the practice first orginated in lebanon, where people would place sliced cucumber onto plates. This was around 500 years ago. Needless to say that the practice has developed somewhat. Its about time that cucumbering got the recognition it deserves! User_talk:martymonster, 12.36, 2 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Churches of Christ Congregations

This list serves no encyclopedic purpose except to advertise the locations of churches within a certain denomination. Wikipedia is not a church directory. The end of the article is also a massive external linkfarm. Sally Anne 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no difference between this list and List of open source games. There are millions of games in the world, and the list is a specific collection of the ones that are open source. There are millions of churches in the world, and the list is a specific collection of the ones that are ICOC. Under Purpose of lists on Wikipedia:List guideline, it specifies that a list may be one of information, a "valuable information source." This is. There is no where on the web currently keeping an up to date list of the ICOC churches, and the last one (at icocinfo.org) shut down recently. There is no attempt made to advertise specific locations (no address, phone numbers, etc) are included, just information. RE the "linkfarm", I have advocated in the past that the links at the bottom be merged in with the list (i.e. have church name, website link in one line). It's a big job though and no one has done it yet. The links should definately be here--I mean, if someone is looking for the Toronto Church of Christ website, and they get here, why make them google it? Overall, I think this is a great resource to have on Wikipedia. Rob 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of links, but that's what this article is. Many religious denominations maintain their own web sites which have directories of all their congregations. The fact that the ICOC has failed to do so does not mean that Wikipedia ought to do that for them; Wikipedia is not a free web host, either. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you referenced, is exactly what this list is NOT.
1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). (It is NOT this. The church locations are strongly associated.)
2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. (It is not this. There are no addresses, no phone numbers, no contact information short of the website.
3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. (Again, not this. While it might fit the definition of a "directory", the heart of this policy is to avoid people creating a business website on Wikipedia.
With respect to being a "repository of links", Wikipedia again says:
1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. (Not this. Again, the heart behind this policy is to avoid tons of external links to opinion sites, and unofficial sites. In an organization where there are many OFFICIAL sites, I believe this is totally fine. For example, see List of MMORPGs. Just a list of games, but a link to each one's wikipedia entry; one type, many different non-opinion sites. Also, see List of combinatorics topics. If you want to say anything about the list in question, say we should get rid of the external links, and work on making wikipedia articles for each of the different churches, maybe with a history (planting date, growth rates, news stories about it in particular, etc) and include the website link there. Though I do think this would lead to a lot of new articles, a good number of them could include some good information for people wanting to know about the church they attend, or are thinking of attending. Rob 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I see that you are so convinced of your position that you have gone and nominated the article yourself. Good job putting your money where your mouth is. We need more people like you who don't just sit back and release judgements but actually get their hands dirty and do some work. Suoerh2 09:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ExVoto

non-notable band: no assertion or evidence of notability, amazon's never heard of them, official website is an AOL homepage Sam Clark 13:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Mason

Keep as he is developing more technology for the medical industry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.234.93.43 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin BanyanTree (reason: csd a7). Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon awakening

Nonnotable RPG forum. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Seriously, you guys. Maxamegalon2000 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luminary (album)

The actual band (who don't appear all that notable aside from their singer) doesn't have an article, so it makes little sense that their albums would.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe merge to a Adeyto discography since the current article is rather long (suggestion supplements "keep" vote above"). Kappa 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete = keep. --Ezeu 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Half-Life 2

  • Doesn't fit into Wikipedia. A list of info that is only helpful to a person who plays or has played Half-Life 2. Similar lists have been deleted in the past. All relevant info is found within the main article.

Furthermore, it is unfair to keep this entry up when other lists made for titles such as, for example, the Battlefield series and Halo are taken down on the same grounds. Half-Life 2 should not be kept exempt when other games are having their lists deleted for similar reasons. I propose we Delete it. --Gazdakka Gizbang 00:58, 28 October 2006 (EST)

- As do most of the other games that have had all of their lists deleted. Popularity should not contribute to whether this article remains. If it did, then most of the titles would never have had their work deleted in the first place. --Gazdakka Gizbang 01:11, 28 October 2006 (EST)

Article is very informative, it would be extremely useful for people interested in computer gaming.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As is every other previously deleted article, but as you said, WP:POINT applies. --Gazdakka Gizbang 01:49, 28 October 2006 (EST)


  • Keep - I know that popularity should not contribute to the debate. When I look at an article for deletion, I look at WP policies but I also ask myself, if I wanted information on this topic, would I come here? I dont play the game but if I wanted some more information on the game, I would probably come here and search it out. So, I gotta go with keep. Chris Kreider 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to be made: Anyone who wants information on weaponry for *insert game here* would find this site useful if the article for it is up. If this article remains then I must inquire: Why is it that this entry remains when the others are taken away, yet they accomplish the same purpose of providing useful information on the matter? Just the wrong deletion reviewing crowd? --Gazdakka Gizbang 01:18, 28 October 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia is not run by precedent law, WP:POINT says "Wikipedia is inconsistent". Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Shall wait for remainder of votes to be cast. --Gazdakka Gizbang 01:35, 28 October 2006 (EST)
Hm. Part of me wants to say "There's plenty of sites that cover the weapons in HL2", but I dunno. Maybe merge it with the HL2 article? For now I'll abstain. Also, has anybody noticed that this AfD is displayed in two different places on the AfD page? But clicking on the "edit" link for the second one takes me to a blank page. Is it just my browser, or what? Edward Wakelin 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that too. The second link has been deleted --Gazdakka Gizbang 01:57, 28 October 2006 (EST)

Keep it, it's an useful reference for anyone interested in the HL2 world, compiling all known data about the weapons in one spot. Besides, the information it provides is very inlikely to be found on game sites (such as design discrepancies, cut weapons, their construction etc.) EDIT: Wait, is this vote cast because Halo's list got offed? Mikael GRizzly 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because various articles relating to list-based information for games have been deleted in the past. Halo was merely an example, you should know that. --Gazdakka Gizbang 02:48, 28 October 2006 (EST)
This is not a rule, because there is no precedence laws on Wikipedia - The Half-Life 2 article covers an analysis of the weaponry, including information not found elsewhere on the web (where would you find, that Tri Nguyen designed the OSIPR basing on the MG-42?) and is useful to anybody interested in the Half-Life 2 subject, while Halo articles would appeal only to Halo fanboys ;)
Seriously though, there is no basis for deleting the article, as it has existed for a long time, and has grown very large and comprehensive. Mikael GRizzly 18:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know, I just figured this kind of deletion spree would happen when I started to see this sort of thing crop up a few days ago. However, regardless of one's feelings about this article, or the others, I think that at least some of this information should be merged elsewhere. The Gravity Gun, for example, is unique enough to deserve its own article even if this is deleted, and the information about Annabell merged to Father Grigori. Maybe others, I don't know. Oh well, let's hope we don't have another cookie episode. FrozenPurpleCube 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If we break the article down into each of the elements that indivudally seem important, i bet that those article would all pop up for deletion. Maybye the article could use some slimming down, but as mentioned, it does appear that there is some content of value. The trick is sorting it out. To reitterate what Encyclopaedia Editing Dude said, wikipedia is not run on precedence like law. It would appear that the halo argument is not helping the overall argument at hand, but instead opening the door for more arguments that will not help solve this issue. Chris Kreider 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I certainly agree that this article is a keeper, heck, I felt the same way about the Halo, BF, and other articles, but I could tell when I first saw them that it wouldn't be worth arguing about. That said, even if we did accept that this article as a whole isn't a keeper, I do think it is obvious there are keepable elements in there. (And note that section on the alyx gun is in the Alyx Vance article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd like to keep this article, along with all the other ones deleted from other games, but it doesn't fit in, as stated before. If it HAS to be deleted, perhaps we should incorporate into the main article? I believe there is a weapons list in the Halo article.--Satanator 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The weapons in Half-Life 2 are quite significant to the game, and are very notable in their own right. For example, the crowbar and gravity gun have become synonymous with the name Half-Life. The gravity gun, in particular, has received a lot of attention due to its uniqueness and its perceived "revolutionary" it has achieved in the genre. In terms of being the best weapon ever, it was voted number one by GameTrailers. However, something like weapons and vehicles in Battlefield 2 are generic and hardly specific to the game itself. It's highly unlikely that someone would get Antlion pheropods and the Combine pulse rifle confused with another game. If the article needs to be cut down, the "Deleted weapons" section can be trimmed quite heavily. MarphyBlack 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mostly original research, game guide and per arguments reasons put forth in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2. Wickethewok 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The information here is verifiable through the Half-Life 2 Official Prima Game Guide or Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar, both of which cover the game's weapons quite extensively. MarphyBlack 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. This most clearly and obviously is a game guide that fails WP:NOT. Plus there are OR issues. Crowbars are not "synonymous with the name Half-Life". They are synonymous with "metal tool for opening crates". Gravity gun can be mentioned (probably already is) in the main game article. This long list of pistols and grenades and rayguns and whatnot and how to find them in the game and use them effectively is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Bwithh 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The crowbar has indeed become quite synonymous with Half-Life in popular culture. This is even acknowledged in the article here on crowbars. The gravity gun is only passively mentioned in the Half-Life 2 article. However, I'm positive that adding one big paragraph solely dedicated to the weapon will break the very fine balance of this article's current featured status. Hence, the reason why this article in question was created. MarphyBlack 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia is not a game guide, but it is a game encylopedia, and this contributes quite nicely to that function. Kappa 04:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'm not sure why the article on Halo 2's weapons was deleted. In fact, I'm not sure why video game articles are so frequently killed through AfD. The weapons in this game are notable on their own, and they deserve their own page on WP. -- Kicking222 14:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the article is a fairly useful and informative resource, though I will admit it has gotten quite bloated and contains a lot of unnecessary information. The article could definitely use some extensive scaling down and editing. If it should be deleted, then I suggest moving some of the more notable content to appropriate places, perhaps incorporate certain characters' trademark weapons into their respective pages (crowbar/gravity gun to Gordon, Alyxgun to Alyx, Annabelle to Grigori etc.). Combine weapons can be and already are incorporated into the Combine Combat Technology article, and a Rebel Combat Tech article may be a useful for categorizing the crossbow, dune buggy and airboat.Shabby 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a section from a game manual, not an encyclopedia entry. All barely relevant data is already included in the various Half Life related articles. This also seems to have a serious WP:OR problem on top of it. JoshuaZ 23:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not a game guide. With absolutely no sourcing, there looks to be a WP:OR problem, but Half-Life 2 is popular enough that there might be published reliable sources for significant portions of the page. But those sources probably would be game guides, making it very hard for this article to be anything but a game guide. 198.22.153.9 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave this opinion, not realizing that my login had lapsed. Sorry. GRBerry 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep because I frequently looked at this article prior to buying Half-Life 2. I wanted to see whether the weapons remained loyal to the original and if there were and unique weapons like the egon from HL1. I also used it check whether I'd be playing half the game without a shotgun or if that gravity gun everyone was talking about was a end-of-game only weapon. This article really helped me decide whether or not to buy Half-Life 2 as opposed to something else. And you can't say that this article should be deleted because other articles were deleted. Maybe no one who had read the Halo 2 weapons article showed up to vote against its deletion. Maybe the Battlefield and Halo articles shouldn't have been deleted after all. I might make a case against, for example, Counter-Strike weapons, because you could make the case that articles for the real-world guns already exist. Since these weapons are all unique, information on them would be unavailable anywhere else. Plus, this is useful for anyone (like me) who like to see how much damage their weapons do so they can plan battles in advance, or want some extra information that they didn't know about their gun like the instant-kill for man-sized foe. For example, I thought that since the orbs did 100 damage and poison zombies have 150 health, that the former wouldn't kill the latter in 1 hit but the opposite is true. 68.44.212.188 22:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Avatar (icon). --Ezeu 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpic

I say: this entire article is original research and should be scrapped permanently. Yeago says: even if it's original research, it's still a useful article. What says AFD? Ashibaka tock 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism with 1.6M results on google...? Of course, Avatar is the natural winner with 26M but check your thoughts somewhere before your fingers.Yeago 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I agree with you on many scales. But this is an article about 100 pixel squares. My issue here is with things like 'audience' and 'readability'—things the witchhunters of original research are too busy to bother about =).Yeago 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good but who is 'Shii'?Yeago 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the few people on Wikipedia lucky enough to have a nickname! Ashibaka tock 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured they were a wiki-cheerleader of yours. Especially considering they say 'per shii' and yet you didn't vote. Just checkin', Shii =)Yeago 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Bowden

This article was originally kept by a very spare consensus at its first AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure, in light of concerns over sourcing and WP:BLP, for which see the DRV. This is procedural listing, so I abstain. Although there are no quorums at any XfD, closing this discussion with few commenters is discouraged, given the particular history here. Xoloz 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the comment at the bottom can be established as the subject of the article, then maybe it should be deleted, for now, I abstain.Edward Wakelin 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Delete - I disagree that the article chronicles a notable individual. I personally could list as many poster/paper presentations for myself. There aren't many publications, and I couldn't find significant data about the individuals who cowrote the papers with Blake. Again I will point out that I have my name on several "publications" for doing little more than basic statistical analyses. I almost changed my mind when reading the theatre section, but I will once again point out that adapting a well known book into a play is not really notable (in wikipedia anyway) until the adaptaion becomes notable (which it has not). It seems to me that the only achievement worth mention is Blake's teen study. Since the only citation points to a poster Blake presented at a large conference, I am inclined to see this article sent to the digital garbage bin unless somebody comes along to significantly improve the article. -bobby 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am sure many of us have made posters and given presentations. I can think of 4 I did my senior year but it was in front of no more than the entire department and some other people. The posters and presentations claimed in this article, were given at some pretty notable functions it would appear, not just some guys speech for a class presentation. Chris Kreider
      • Comment - Fair enough. I just get nervous that there are a lot of people with distinguished academic credentials and it is just not reasonable to give each a page on Wikipedia. I would still like to hear more about this individual before feeling satisfied with the article. In the meantime, I have upgraded from delete to weak delete. -bobby 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why wouldn't it be reasonable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Truly distinguished academics should have Wikipedia articles, but it takes quite a career to reach that point. Many articles, book chapters, and a few full books would usually be needed first. Nothing against Dr. Bowden, but there doesn't appear to be anything here that separates him from the typical Ph.D./Psy.D. Just look at any professor's vita online and you'll see what I mean. -- Tim D 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claims of academic notability come only from a dissertation and a poster presentation, neither of which have been published with peer review. His actual publications are very few and far between, and he is not first author on any of them - which would make a difficult case for tenure at many universities, much less for an encyclopedia entry. Ultimately, most of the content does not appear to be verifiable through web searches or academic databases like PsychINFO. -- Tim D 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very dubious notability. Mostly uncited. And it appears the subject is unhappy with the article (no, that's not a reasoning to delete on demand, but it tips the balance on an otherwise borderline) -Doc 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete. Subject is writing now (Blake Bowden) to say (as I have before) that a member of my family has done some postings. I appreciate her enthusiasm, but have now restricted the computer access on this and other machines. Yes. It is this same machine - as well as my laptop. I am pleased about a few of her submissions, but I don't endorse this article. I have previously asked this this be removed (publicly and at 'the office') and I ask it again. PLEASE REMOVE. Not sure how to sign so ~Blake Bowden~ asking to remove, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 October 2006
  • Delete Without citations or references, we have no real case that Mr. Bowden is more notable than the average professor, so he fails WP:PROF in my eyes. There are no non-research claims to notability, so I believe he also fails WP:BIO. GRBerry 18:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Theguyinblue. Arbusto 09:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Password Magic

No evidence that this meets WP:SOFT, author's only contrib, likely WP:SPAM VoiceOfReason 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leviism

Delete. There are no sources to verify this religion. A Google search for "Leviism" brings up 11 results, and "Leviist" 4 results. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Podshow About Nothing

When researching, don't confuse with 'The Podcast About Nothing', an apparently more popular podcast with a very similar name - that threw me for a minute. This one fails WP:WEB. Article was created by show's producer User:Djsteen, no alexa rank, only 'reference' is the podcast's feed. -- Vary | Talk 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Luna Santin 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Forchion

Keep- The man was the subject of an interview done for CNN Headline News primetime-- granted it was done in jest, but this not worthy of deletion. Delete Non-notable perennial candidate --LyonsTwp,IL. 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - He ran for governor, but most of his citations are for his website, njweedman or whatever. It it political though and I tend to err on the side of caution of policital stuff like that. Chris Kreider 17:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete/Merge - While I agree with Chris that 'politicians' are often notable, it is important to recognize that Forchion is not a politician. He does not run for office with the intention of winning, but rather to make a point. At best, the article should be cut down to a short paragraph and moved here. Otherwise it should be deleted. -bobby 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I kind of agree about the making a point comment, but nobody runs for office with out the desire to win. As much as I may disagree with the party and disagree with the guy i still feel like it should stay. If a majority consensus disagrees with me though, my weak keep may be dowgraded. Chris Kreider 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I like the idea, but i am still reluctant to say i approve of the idea. I will watch the nominations play out and see where it goes. It is a good idea, but im still on the fence. Whatever happens, the content should be preserved somehow, whether through a merge or a save. (Dont get me wrong, i dont approve of this guy, or his party) Chris Kreider 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find it troubling that you assume you know his intentions in running for office; whether he intends to win, to make a point, or both, it's irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. Dylan 16:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man has appeared several times in the media, not only on local television but also on national television. Even if he is a perennial candidate with no realistic chance of winning, he is still a main figure in the U.S. Marijuana Party and rightfully deserves his place on Wikipedia. What's wrong with a little inclusionism for a man that has been around for a fair amount of time? eszetttalk 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has appeared in more than enough stories about him to pass WP:BIO. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My Dad voted for him in 2005. He's on the offical ballot in Hudson County NJ (don't know about the rest of the counties). Jporcaro 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He may be non-notable as a candidate, but is notable for other reasons (primarily, giving visibility to legal issues surrounding marijuana). -- Sholom 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- He is on the ballot in many New Jersey counties. At least Hunterdon and Hudson. People have the right to obtain information about him regardless of anyone's own personal opinions of him. BodomBass 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has been featured on plenty of tv news interviews and has gotten 10000 votes when running for governor of new jersey. Plus he is a figure that has been on the news and in the public's eye more than once. --insertwackynamehere 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- very much a public figure, has run in a good handful of more-than-local elections. Dylan 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- He's also on the ballot in Middlesex county. Regardless, he is quite notable in the NJ/Philly area.--Cwawak 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Coming

Was deleted through prod contested on DRV and undeleted. Article doesn't meet WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my delete nom. Chris Kreider 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok mmoginfo.com is a listing for MMPORG's, the same for mmorpg.com, gamestationstore.com looks like a combination sale/review site. Pc.gamezone.com is a short blurb about the game no review or anything. Gameogre.com is another listing site, Au.pc.gamespy.com is another short blurb, and appdb.winehq.org is another listing site. Whispering 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - French website which reviewed the game: [37] French Wikipedia article (created 2 years ago): [38] News article on a French website: [39] I think this one's another review: [40] Looks like another review: [41] This is definately a notable game. Sean K 09:55, 28 October 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, Ezeu 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Partners Inc.

Prod was placed October 24 and removed October 27 without comment by User:El-dodo. The company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Mikeblas 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirMagnet

Article does not indicate notability, merely the fact that it exists, has been funded, and has produced products. johnpseudo 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Definitley needs some cleanup. Article does claim that company was first to do something and lists at least 3 articles from farily reputable magazines (at least in my opinion). Needs some cleanup and work but it does not appear to be too spammish, could get rid of some external links though. Chris Kreider 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - looks like a somewhat close call, but I think it's gotten some media attention [42] [43] [44] [45], and I keep finding product mentions (granted, they're mostly in passing, but it seems the products keep getting listed). Luna Santin 08:57, 2 November 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, Ezeu 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or possibly no consensus, which would default to keep in any case. Luna Santin 02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmir Terziu

Notability appears to be suspect. At the moment, my gut feeling is weak keep, but wanted to submit it for discussion. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardie

Neologism, term exisits in Urban Dictionary, also from talk page, this is a "local" term used in upstate NY Wildthing61476 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Delete- that is a dictionary entry not a wikipedia entry. I think it might qualify for a speedy under A1, a short article with little or no context. Chris Kreider 17:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a widely used term in upstate NY. Also, last I checked Wikipedia was not a repository for FFL teams. I left a message for the article's creator and hopefully he/she will delete it on their own. I believe they were trying to be constructive which is why I disagree with the speedy delete. -bobby 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and if anyone wants to perform a merge into another article please contact an administrator to temporarily restore the page for you. While notability is a guideline, it is still very important as clarification of policy and, as someone quotes Jimbo as saying, to keep the standards and credibility of Wikipedia at a certain level. While there was some support to keep this page, the main arguments consisted of quoting Alexa rank and comparing this to a whole bunch of other Wikis that already have articles on Wikipedia. (And a few new users who undoubtably came here due to mention of this AfD on WoWWiki, please remember that this process is a discussion, not a vote). To sumarize what others have already said in response to these arguments: the Alexa test is highly unreliable, and the fact that there are other wikis here that should not be on Wikipedia is not a relavent argument to keep this one. If you are concerned about articles on Wikis that should not be here, you are free to discuss their deletion individually.--Konst.ableTalk 07:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WoWWiki

Self nomination Fails WP:NN. This is a fan website, and I do not see how it is notable, yet alone even worth mentioning on Wikipedia. It is only directly related to World of Warcraft, and all other Wikipedia articles that link to this do so in their External links sections. It arguably could be cited as a source (within context), however it clearly doesn't need its own article. Many MMORPGs have their own unofficial fan-driven wikis (PlaneShift has like three of them, and Anarchy Online has AOWiki); yet they do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Tuxide 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I where you, I would actually do a little research before screaming WP:NN, as this is very much notable. Also, there are no rules that go against fan sites. If it is mentioned in the EL section of those articles, they can be safely removed and added to the "See also" section of said articles. This is in fact the biggest Warcraft related Wiki, and I would encourage you to find any other Warcraft Wiki which is as big as this one, so you can prove me wrong on this. Thank you. One last thing, I feel this is a bad faith nomination as you have done little to no research on the subject matter before you placed the AfD. Havok (T/C/c) 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...wtf? Tuxide 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I urge you to follow policy and Assume Good Faith rather than continue to make accusations of bad faith nominations because of fundamental philosophical differences on notability. --Kunzite 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions, listed for convenience:

  • Delete - I have seen several nominations for articles like this recently. Not notable enough. Chris Kreider 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fans of the game already know about the WoW wiki and anybody doing research on the game can find what they need here. -bobby 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - How would whether or not WoW players know about the wiki affect its notability? Surely that would only count for the article rather than against it? I would dispute that wikipedia has everything that a reasearcher would need, but if it is to then link to WoWWiki to give a researcher the information missing from here, would it not be a reasonable to have an independant article showing them what the WoWWiki is like? Kirkburn 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason not to keep this article, given the prior decisions on Lostpedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, etc, though if we are going to delete it, maybe it should be added to the EL section of World of Warcraft? FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is already in the References section of World of Warcraft; in addition when I nominated it, the website was in the External links section of Warcraft II and Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. Tuxide 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This site does not meet the guidelines of notability for web content. Like a similar article on an MMORPG wiki, this site deserves to be an external link on the article of the game it's about, at best. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel I should mention that the wiki is not just about World of Warcraft, but the entire Warcraft universe - which is an awful lot larger. It's also one of the most popular Warcraft-related websites in the world - the Alexa ranking is now around 4,000 and rising. I have to ask, why do we need a third nomination about this? Are we going to keep having them until it's deleted and there's no way back? Please don't bite my head off for mentioning this, but using the medium of a google search WoWWiki gets 291,000 results for me (compared to 318,000 for Wookieepedia), which seems an awful for lot for something non-notable -- Kirkburn 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please clarify this: the Alexa ranking is now around 4,000 and rising. I assume you do realize that the number getting bigger is worse. The reason this was nominated for a third time is that this non-notable, being an unofficial fan site. I didn't see my argument brought up in the previous two nominations. Tuxide 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Certainly, see [46]. Several days recently the wiki has reached a rank of around 2,500 (the very, very recent dip is due a small amount of downtime). Thank you for mentioning my semantics rather than concentrating on the point, btw. And yes your argument was brought up before. Kirkburn 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Wait a moment - are you saying you didn't actually check to see whether the site was popular (most surely an indication of notability) before nominating it on the basis of non-notability? Since when is the fact that it is "unofficial fan site" qualify it for non-notability? Does something have to be officially sanctioned to be notable? Does the fact it's not a Blizzard-run site count against it? Please explain your reasoning further. Kirkburn 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What the h3ll does self nomination mean? "Not notable enough" shouldn't be an acceptable argument for deletion. Some actual evidence sould be required.
    • WoWWiki is one of the most used sources of World of Warcraft UI modification API information. It has more info than Blizzard supplies on their sites (game site and forums).
    • The argument that WoW info on Wikipedia can replace WoWWiki is ludicrous.
    • Why don't you better spend your time nominating WikiFur for deletion. This uses 4 of 5 references from wikia.com (2 of which are self-referential to WikiFur itself) to somehow justify it's notability. Clearly there is a group of wikipedians targeting WoWWiki and not really concerned about non-notable wikis.
    • In all honesty, I don't really care whether this article gets deleted, but if it does at least use a better argument than a weak notability argument. I expect this article to get nominated for deletion on a regular basis. Some wikipedians clearly love their bureaucracy. --Fandyllic 1:42 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006
  • Comment When I nominated this, I didn't realize there were articles on Lostpedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, etc. Since these are unofficial fan sites (hosted by Wikicities even), I would challenge whether they are encyclopedic enough to merit their own articles on Wikipedia. It is with much consideration that I believe such notability should be proven. For example, Uncyclopedia is notable; you can clearly see this in its References section. Tuxide 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Kirkburn. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or delete all the aforementioned similar wikis. They are all of dubious notability, but I don't see the point in deleting just WoWWiki and not wikifur or wookiepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falard (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Seems like it fails WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - How, exactly? Kirkburn 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not an expert in the vague bureaucracy of Wikipedia, but I hope votes without any argument to support their assertions are considered weak votes. --Fandyllic 3:54 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006

Tuxide 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I take that back, they were not asking for votes (by the rule of the word); however since this is a pro-Warcraft site, I am leaving up the {{afdanons}} template and bringing the linkage to attention, to reach better consensus. Tuxide 22:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine, I've removed the first one. It was a notification, not a solicitation. I'm not allowed to post about this somehow? As to the second, I'm not allowed to talk to my fellow admins now? I would prefer that you didn't try and twist my words. Kirkburn 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that perhaps the first edit was a little over the line. Mostly I added it as the fact that this article keeps getting nominated is becoming somewhat of a running joke for us :) As to my comment to a fellow admin on WoWWiki - who knows more about the website than someone who has worked on it for years? Do they no right to give evidence here? Because that's how you're making it sound. Kirkburn 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't mind if you restore that "WoWWiki talk:Village pump" comment, as long as its intention is to address it to your users and not to solicit outside voting. Someone might disagree with me, though. I've only heard of your site once before, and that was in a copyright problem when I noticed a group of users uploading World of Warcraft screenshots onto Wikipedia from your website, and claiming them as GFDL or PD (which in no way they are, being WoW screenshots they are fair use). Tuxide 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What, so now the mistakes of others has become relevant to the discussion? Kirkburn 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have seen the deletion banner for WoWWiki here eventually, but I honestly don't consider Wikipedia much of a reference to be too concerned about. I just don't want to let WoWWiki get deleted because of somebody who clearly has an agenda to do it and isn't really applying equal standards to Wikipedia articles. The concern about Kirkburn notifying me seems more paranoid and sad than actual worry about a conspiratorial effort. Whatever. --Fandyllic 3:58 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006
    Like I said, I see nothing wrong with notifying other users (like on your WoWWiki talk page) as long as you're not soliciting votes. I was being a bit prejudicial, that's why I took back that previous comment yet left {{afdanons}} on the top. Please don't edit my nomination, it is obvious enough that I was the one that nominated this article. Tuxide 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't obvious to me you nominated, so I changed it back. Are you afraid to be identified? Could you at least explain what the heck self nomination means? It sounds like the article nominated itself to be deleted which is silly on its face. --Fandyllic 5:36 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006
    Self nomination means it is the reason why it was nominated, to make it more convenient for people to Delete per nom or otherwise see it. I don't know why you think I'm hiding myself, it is very obvious that I'm the one who's bold enough to nominate this a third time. Tuxide 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? What is it in the sentence: "Self nomination means it is the reason why it was nominated"? This seems like a self-referential explanation. However fond of PINE meaning "PINE Is Not an Editor", it is still non-sensical. --Fandyllic 10:01 AM PST 30 Oct 2006
    It is irrelevant to the conversation, I only brought up the screenshot thing because you're an admin on that site, and I didn't bother notifying anyone on your site when I brought it up on WP:PUI. Tuxide 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kirkburn, et al. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. It seems that none of these references are about WoWWiki itself but instead mention its content in passing. They were just as likely to link to GameFAQs or IGN Vault as to WoWWiki, since they are talking about the content, not the site it is hosted on. Please understand, a site being "good" or "popular with fans" does not make it notable here. GarrettTalk 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment While I see your point, I would disagree that they are just as likely to link GameFAQs or IGN Vault, because few to no other sites carry the information the WoWWiki does. Kirkburn 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with World of Warcraft. --Ixfd64 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Virtual community section of World of Warcraft and redirect there. Picaroon9288 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep, Alexa rank demonstrates sufficient popularity to be worth mentioning. Kappa 04:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails web content guidelines per my comments in previous AFDs. Alexa rank is totally irrelevant and should not be considered for keeping or deleting an article. A one or two sentence blurb could be added to the WoW article, but there's no need for a merge of full content. --Kunzite 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the large Alexa rank, also looking at how large the website is and has, notably, more information about the Warcraft universe than Wikipedia. Don't decline people the right of more information. EDIT: The Single-purpose account? I lost my first account's email (and password, and had quite some contributions on my old Wikipedia account. You'll see it gets better than this. --Michieldegroot 07:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong mega duper Keep (that was a pun on people voting "strong delete" as there is no such thing). Anyway, it is notable, it is well known, it stays. Also, I vote that this is a bad faith nomination as the nominator himself hasn't checked the sites notability and ranking (which was said further up). Havok (T/C/c) 08:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: actually, there is such a thing. There's probably some essay that explains it better than I can, but the purpose of strong/weak isn't to make the "vote" count more but to indicate that that user can/can't be swayed or is certain/uncertain about their choice. If an afd has multiple "weak keep"s and a handful of "strong delete"s the closing admin may well decide to delete anyway if the rationales given by the deleters, together with their certainty, result in a stronger indication of the action to take. GarrettTalk 02:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found this very interesting comment on your talk page -- it's very relevant to your stance on this article: "I see that your opinion that notability is a silly criterion is affecting your editing style, and very much to the detriment of the encyclopedia I think. Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers... [W]e must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" --Kunzite 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I find the whole premiss silly because nobody can prove or disprove notability. All it takes on Wikipedia is a handful of people voting "keep" and one person voting "delete" and the article stays, same as other way around. People use notability to delete articles which are highly notable, because they themselves don't see the notability. This AfD is a good example, as the person who started it hasn't done any research on it. I stand by my annotation about V and NN, as I find them silly and in many cases counter productive to Wikipedia, as all it takes are enough people. I might want to explain that a little closer on my User Page, if you don't understand what I am saying, please ask me and I will try to explain it. Havok (T/C/c) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fully understand your position, and like Jimbo Wales, I find it to be a detriment of the encyclopedia. Notability is in the eye of the beholder, of course. That's why there are guidelines and policies that were drawn up through concensus of Wikipedia users. Your post seems to indicate unhappiness with the deletion process in addition to your (IMO) flawed opinion of notability. I also have same deep concerns about the AFD process myself: it's very arbitrary. Closing admins often treat AFDs as votes rather than the debates they are supposed to be and give un-due weight to personal opinion, but it's hard to change the process. --Kunzite 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is also why this whole AfD is - in my eyes - counterproductive to Wikipedia. As it boils down to right now is who has the most "Keep" and "Delete" votes. People should by now understand that WP:WEB and WP:N are both guidelines, NOT official policy. And that AfDs should not be made to "verify" something, we have cleanup tags for that. Havok (T/C/c) 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know, I know... we've played the semantics game about guidelines not being offical policy, before. This is why I feel concur with Jimbo Wales about your position being a detrement to Wikipedia. Disregarding content inclusion guidelines allows for the inclusion of stuff which dilutes the value of other articles. I look at the notability guidelines as clarifications of policy, while exceptions need to occasionaly be made, and they are a pretty good standard for article inclusion. The article up for nomination does not come anywhere near to passing the very lax criteria laid out in the web content guidelines but it gets a lot of I like it votes. This happens all of the time. It shouldn't. --Kunzite 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wickethewok. Combination 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something funny about the Alexa rank. Most of its traffic comes from either Wikipedia or Digg or various blogs, unless they insert the URL manually. There are many problems with the Alexa test, see WP:SET#Alexa test. Its user base is very small and consists of Internet Explorer users who choose to install a spyware program/toolbar; in particular, webmasters who seek to boost their site rankings. Since there are admins from WoWWiki coming to this nomination page and citing from Alexa, this point is obviously invalid. There is a 1UP.com article that merely uses it as a reference, but that's the only context I've seen it used in. I still don't see how this is notable: I haven't seen a single independent article written about WoWWiki. Tuxide 01:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My personal view on the above - grasping at straws. "Webmasters who seek to boost their site rankings"? Please, do not attempt defamation, we do no such thing (nor can!), and are extremely insulted by your suggestion. Why you describe it as "spyware" I do not know, and how exactly do you know "most of its traffic comes from either Wikipedia or Digg or various blogs, unless they insert the URL manually" (isn't that how the internet works?) and "Its user base is very small". I am not using it to 'prove' it either way, but as context. The IE restriction has very little bearing on the matter - WoW is dual platform, so if anything would show fewer results than in an accurate survey. And I still fail to see why you're so weirdly paranoid about people who work on the website coming here to give an opinion. You sound like you wish wikipedia was some exclusive members-only club, where 'outsiders' aren't allowed! Kirkburn 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is to more formally prove that the Alexa test is invalid, by example. In no way do I intend to defame WoWWiki admins, however the tone of some of these responses here, as well as their lack of factuality towards the nomination, is enough for me to argue that the converse is true. Tuxide 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would contest that you have not 'formally' proved anything. I do not control the views of others, and note that I have not engaged in mudslinging here. I am here to discuss why this article is of value to wikipedia, and I really do want to have a discussion over it :) Again, no we do not engage in any underhand tactics to gain readership (nor could we, as we have no direct control over the wiki. None whatsoever, and it severely annoys us.). We do not advertise, or post links to us on forums o'er the world. Yet still we remain frequently referenced on wikipedia, and known to many many people. If you are going to accuse people of things they do not do, try and at least back up your statements rather than 'infer' something from a heated debate. It wouldn't stand up in court, it shouldn't here. It's somewhat hard to write an article about a wiki, as it has few identifyable features. No company, no employees, no 'aim', etc. Of course wikipedia has articles about itself, due to the phenomenon it has produced, but other wikis stand in its shadow and correspondingly get little written about them, whatever their notoriety or notability. I just wish to see common sense around here - talking generally, I've seen far too many edit wars over the tiniest, stupidest little thing all because someone wanted to follow a policy absolutely to the letter, to the detriment of 'the whole'. Kirkburn 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kirkburn, etc. Why are articles like Wikifur kept, else? --Adys
  • Comment I feel I should clarify a point. Since many, many wikipedia Warcraft articles reference WoWWiki (and rightly so, as WoWWiki has more info), would it not be just to have an indepedent page describing this site? If something is referenced frequently on wikipedia, does that not aid its notability? Or is it normal to tell users "go here for more info, but we won't tell you anything about the site, even though we keep mentioning it"? Kirkburn 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • there's a difference between a good information source and a notable one; Death Adder's Castle is the quintessential Golden Axe website, but it will never earn an article here because it would automatically fail WP:WEB. GarrettTalk 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much fancruft exists on Wikipedia (such as on anime and video games), hence the reason Wikicities was created was to merge this fancruft elsewhere. You should start viewing WoWWiki as the answer to this problem on Wikipedia for Warcraft-related fancruft. This nomination page is turning into a discussion forum; people are engaging in discussion for discussion's sake instead of voting whether this article's deletion will contribute improvement to Wikipedia. Please stay on topic here. Tuxide 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As not meeting WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails WP:WEB, and we've deleted popular fansites that fail WP:WEB before, including the FFXI wiki and Serebii, a Pokémon fansite more popular than the official site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. How many times have I said that this week on AfD? --- RockMFR 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kirkburn --RSnook 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — RSnook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoshuaZ 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a link to this site from the World of Warcraft site is reasonable. Doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry, and worse than that, the entry it currently has is dull. Ocicat 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than 18,000 articles of varying lengths, hundreds of pictures and a growing community base -Derktar 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - no real argument put forward that it is anything but crystal-ballery. Yomanganitalk 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krrish 2

Film has not been officially announced, director has confirmed that project may be scrapped, therefore, I propose this article deleted. Visual planet 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hang on! the template {{ future film }} says that "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT FUTURE OR EXPECTED FILMS". So, what's the matter. Krrish 2 is expected film, isn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunty02 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The use of template could be justified if an official announcement had been made that there will be a sequel and it will be title "Krrish 2". There have been speculations about the sequel, but there have been no announcements yet, and there is no reason to believe that the sequel will be titled "Krrish 2". See the note at Category:Upcoming films. The template and category for the films that are "not released as of yet, but are factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future". Krrish 2 doesn't satisfy this criteria. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates#Future_events utcursch | talk 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 01:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggsville County Sheriff's Posse`

First off, if we are to believe that the page is true and properly cited (which it isn't) the Ruggsville County Sheriff's Posse are hardly notable to The Devil's Rejects, the film in which they are from, to warrant their own article. Their only notability is for housing John Wydell and George Wydell, both of whom have their own articles.

The article is clearly fiction, yet there is no identification of such. Instead, its reads like an actual website for the posse.

There are no citations to verify the infomation in the article. In fact, after reading the article, it reads to me more like fanfiction and original research. CyberGhostface 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Anybody notice the city listed isent in a wikpedia listed city in texas. I am not saying that every city liste is. Also, some of the wiki links are screwy (they go to some articles thatlook different than what youd expect). On top of that, no sources and what sounds like a load of it def a deleter. Now, if some sources could be pulled, and if this was lefit, it does sound notable enough. Chris Kreider 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one might qualify for a speedy (hoax). As far as I can tell there is no Ruggsville in Texas, which is actually not even the article's biggest problem. There's also the matter of the first person narrative tone, and the fact that the article is unexplicably categorized with Rob Zombie. I'll do some more research, but if I can't find any solid info substantiating the county's existence, I'm going to ask for a speedy delete. -bobby 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just so no one gets the wrong idea idea, this is a fictional town from a fictional film. The problem is not that its a fictional town that does not exist, but because all the research and backstory was created by the user writing it and has no citations.--CyberGhostface 18:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - OK then. Most of my above comments can be ignored. I will stick with my original vote for two reasons. First, although I have never seen the film, it sounds as if the Posse in question is not notable, per Cyber's comment). Second, the content does not keep to the tone of an encyclopedia. -bobby 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems the owner of the article is attempting to remove the deletion template now.--CyberGhostface 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It seems that CyberGhostface has a problem with other people creating anything that he doesn't agree with. He calls this article "fiction" while happily creating his own fiction (See articles about ficticious characters John Wydell and George Wydell). He REFUSES to allow anybody to edit articles that he has created, and he removes any comments made on his user discussion page. I think that he is a big fat CHICKEN!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.45.206 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment - The previous comment was removed (and for good reason) because the editor vandalized the page, replacing all the 'deletes' with 'keep'. I have added it back to A.) Show the type of person this guy is and B.) Respond to his complaints.
      • 1. The problem is NOT that its from a fictional film, but that the article has no basis in fact or citations and is entirely created by the user. The history he created for the Ruggsville Posse is not present in any of the films or backstories. My articles about the Wydell brothers, however, all pertain to the way they were in the film with no original research whatsoever.
      • 2. As for "refusing" to let anyone edit articles I create...I beg to differ. I have created over thirty articles, many of which have had hundreds of contributions. My article for Count Olaf that I started for example has had hundreds of different edits. No, the problem isn't that someone else edited articles that I created...its that that someone else added false and irrevelant information to the articles I created.
      • 3. As for removing his comments on my discussion page...well, I'll let his posts speak for themselves: You are a cocksucking scumbag! and This time, don't remove my post, you malicious cocksucker!!! I hope you can understand why I removed his comments.--CyberGhostface 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable fancruft. --Ezeu 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exmortis

Not particularly notable flash game. Seems to fail WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB. Delete as such. Wickethewok 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Somebody put some work into the article, looks mostly promotional though. Chris Kreider 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to hear from somebody who has actually played the game before deciding either way. The article is nicely composed (as Chris mentioned) and the fact that the game is apparently a trilogy might make this a very weak keep. -bobby 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I changed various subpages to redirects. The Book of the Exmortis had already been changed to a redirect by Xezbeth (talk ·  contribs), and Lord Vlaew was merged by IceCreamAntisocial (talk ·  contribs). There are a lot of ghits, but that's to be expected with a flash game. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE I have actually played both games and I am the author of this article. This game is truly revolutionary and has actually gone beyond much of what is considered "routine" in the flash game genre. The purpose of this article is not promotional, rather, I am trying to put an article describing a notable game. Wikipedia has articles on Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario, are these any less "particularly" notable? Exmortis is very notable: 1) It pushes the boundaries of the flash game genre. 2) The first game has been played by over 5 million people and the second game by 1.3 million. This has an impact in the gaming world. And while I understand you can get a lot of hits on the internet, for a game to be on the internet for only a month or so, and receive this much attention, is, in many ways unheard of. I have contributed a little over 20 articles to wikipedia, and I put a lot of hard work and effort into them. I do not want to see this article be abitrarily deleted, because certain individuals think it is "not particular notable." User:Ladb2000
  • Notability, isn't just something that some editors "feel" is not notable. There are objective criteria, which includes a lack of reliable 3rd party sources on the subject. Under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all information must be verifiable via a published reliable source. This is nothing personal against your article. Wickethewok 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my sources are well documented, showing the creator's page, the critical reception, an interview, as well as links to the two games, so that people if they so choose, can experience for themselves what everything else is. And I beg to differ, but in this case, notability is very much about what some editors feel. I have provided adequate sources, and a well-written article to describe a game that has, in many respects, taken the flash genre by storm. If that isn't notable, then I really don't know what is. So once again, I urge you to please reconsider deleting this article. User:Ladb2000

  • The sources you gave aren't exactly credible... a couple of freehosted walkthroughs and some Newgrounds links...? WP:RS provides some good material on what constitutes a reliable source if you're interested. Wickethewok 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add that you are also a very demanding editor. I checked out your user site. Most editors wouldn't care about the nitty-gritty that you are caring about. I am not referring to the walkthroughs or the new ground links only, I am referring to the interview with Ben Leffler and Ben Leffler's update site/blog on the development of Exmortis 3. While I respect the high standards you are asking for, I have to just state that if you are going to delete this article on the basis that I don't have enough sources or enough "reliable" sources (especially considering that this is a flash game, does not seem entirely fair to me. User:Ladb2000
  • Blogs are specifically not reliable sources according to WP:RS#Self-published_sources. I don't think its overly demanding to ask for some third-party reliable sources. Other amateur games have been featured in gaming magazines, IGN reviews, and what have you, I don't see why this game should be exempt from the same standards we hold other products to. Wickethewok 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, that this game is not a product. The creator has made nothing out of these games. As such, reviews of the kind that you are asking about are harder to come by. Blogs and the like are the only sources that I have found so far.User:Ladb2000

Do not delete. The rules of citation in Wikipedia exist to ensure the quality and encyclopedia-worthiness of the articles. A well written article about a flash game that has been played by millions of people is clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Documentation of the type desired is not possible, because official references on this game do not exist, but because the game is significant, the spirit rather than the letter of the rules on citation should be followed in this case, and the article should be allowed to remain. User:Kier07

  • Do Not Delete. Blogs may not always be the most reliable sources, but Ben Leffler's blog is a primary source. Since Ben Leffler is the creator of the games, any information he gives out will probably be most accurate. This article is well-written, and documents a landmark in internet gaming.--Tusserte 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not convinced by keep arguments as they are not backed by references. --Ezeu 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanaca Crash

Fan made flash game that doesn't seem to be particularly notable. No sources found, so it looks like it fails WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 18:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seen other flash games in wikipedia with no notable things, and not deleted. so why should this be when the others are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZX100 (talk • contribs) — JZX100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dont even bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZX100 (talk • contribs)

I know — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZX100 (talk • contribs) — JZX100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Yptype 09:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, otherwise Weak delete; this has been discussed in print (Anime magazine in Finland, at least, ran a non-trivial article; can't remember which issue). Probably merge-worthy if the authors have done anything more worthwhile. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In terms of notability this game has hundreds of thousands of google hits. Googling for reviews shows around 20000 hits. Yes, these are not published sources, but an internet game IMO can have its notability established by grassroots means. WP:WEB is a guideline not policy. Every guideline has exceptions, and we can use our wiggle room in this case to keep a game that was a popular phenomenon according to google. The article can be improved enough to make it viable to keep it around. -- cmhTC 14:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, in my opinion. It was also made from an [eroge] game CROSS+CHANNEL (The + sign is a horrible excuse for the cross, but eh) made for the PS2. But why not merge it with the article for CROSS+CHANNEL?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, potential single purpose account(s) noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 Doughty Street

Article does not assert notability of subject. --SandyDancer 16:35, 27 October 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, Ezeu 19:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a new TV station with professional content. It's not a kid broadcasting a stream of junk from his bedroom. Also second Phillip Fungs comments.--jrleighton 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sure that this will get picked up on by whoever concludes this debate, but I note three of the four "keep" votes so far come from users with little or no edit history... --SandyDancer 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the keep votes seems to be as suggested by SandyDancer, not three.--jrleighton 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 08:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don 2

I tried searching the net but never came across any news article which talks about sequel to Don; the chase begins...Except for this gentleman's remark that [47] Don2 is a possiblity...

Since there are no confirmed reports and only rumors.. There is no information about this movie on news channels / newspapers / internet.

I think that this article should be deleted. IndianCow Talk 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll second that, Since Don is released just last week, news of Don 2 with exactly same cast(Except for big B) sounds fake to me!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.40.66 (talk • contribs) .

SRK has said himself that he is in tlaks of making don 2 and is even thinking of producing it himself !!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.139.230 (talk • contribs) on 06:09, October 30, 2006 .

Dear 88.109.139.230 please provide [citation needed]IndianCow Talk 09:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Farhan Akhtar said that although he has no intentions of making a sequel, it's not yet final. He will do it after seeing the success of this current film and public demand.
Possibilites are immense, can you second this with any citation..IndianCow Talk 07:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a joke article in its current form Recreate the article if it can be created in an encyclopedic fashion, but the previous state of the article was simply a joke - Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day, and I highly doubt that an article that exclaims how a certain bear has never shaved once in its life is relevant to No Shave November. Cowman109Talk 23:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Shave November

Absolutely no media coverage that I could find. Seems like a holiday someone made up one day (although not necessarily in school.) Naturally, it has problems with verifiability per WP:V. Crystallina 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's a perfectly legitimate thing, people all over the country are going to be doing it so why not have it on Wikipedia? Crystallina, i know you're from LUE and you should support things like this.

  • Weak Keep - Some of the students at my college did this, and from a bit of googling I see other schools 'participate' as well. While the 'holiday' certainly started when some kids at some school invented it after a long night of drinking (no sources, just my suspicion) it is important to recognize that even a concept that began as a pipe dream can become noteworthy after enough people catch the fever (for example). I'd certainly need to see the article expanded in order to give my full-fledged support, but I'm optimistic about its potential. -bobby 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, noting that AFD is not a vote. Wickethewok 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starkish

Attempting to create a neologism Piuro 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree with "Piuro". I don't believe they are attempting to create a neologism, as this word is in current popular use in New Zealand. This page is merely documenting that this has popular word has arisen in New Zealand culture. Newspapers, magazines, bands are using the word, and I can even help out here and put on links to these reliable sources as long as this page does not get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.44.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: studied emerging sub-cultures, it seems obvious that this word is a venacular description of a sub-cultural movement, a way that a certain group of people have started to identify their approach to aesthetics in their urban frameworks. The word itself represents a far greater movement, much like 'maxamalism', 'emo', etc. Sets 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) — Sets (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Probable neologism, dictionary definition. This appears to be just a descriptive word that some PR people are push rather than an actual movement or style linking different artists. - SimonLyall 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the NZ Herald article makes it clear that this is an unencyclopedic PR gimmick. No verifiable sources demonstrating that it is in current use as a description for a movement. Ziggurat 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia exists "to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." [54] While obscure, the burgeoning sub-cultural 'Starkish' movement deserves notation, even though it may be in its infancy within Australasia. Also, my account is not a "single purpose account," I believe that you should only contribute to a website such as Wikipedia only if you have something worthy to share with the world. This is the first worthy (and new) contribution that I have come across, which is why this is my first page contribution on Wikipedia. I'd also like to quote Wikipedias own 'guide to deletion'. It states "before nominating and account for AFD please first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" [55]. While some Wikipedians claim this is an "attempt to create a neologism", I believe this page be kept, as a reference point for the growth of the movement within our pop-cultural sphere. Innovateur 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Innovateur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • In general, that guideline makes sense - but when the person making the "I've never heard of it" comment is someone with intimate knowledge of the field in question (which as an artist, performer, and art critic in New Zealand, I do have), it makes a lot of sense to override that guideline (which, you will note is a guide, not a policy). Though I hesitate to call myself an expert in the firld, I am a published author within it with an everyday working knowledge of it. if I haven't heard of it, then it is almost certain to be at best a neologism, and at worst a hoax. And even if it were an established word usage, its place would be in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Grutness...wha?
  • Keep Would just like to add this: Click on film review of "Junebug" on this page.[56] Is a direct example of a reliable source using the in its context. In regards to the NZ Herald article, please see my 20:54, 27 October 2006 comment. Innovateur 05:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:NEO, using the word is not enough to mark it as a source. It has to explain it. The article above is a source, but the contents of that source only provide a dictionary definition of the word "starkish", leading me to believe the article itself is original research. Please find a source that explains the development of this word and the movement. Otherwise, delete. ColourBurst 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Luna Santin 01:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity 2.0

I have never heard of this in any other place. This is nonsense made up by some marketing type person who wants to latch onto the whole 2.0 business Dun4076 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A google search for 'Identity 2.0' returns 340,000 hits. I didn't go through them all, but there does seem to be a lot of activity on various BLOGS discussing this new idea. I absolutely agree that the article needs serious work (especially with citations) but I'm extremely hesitant to delete any article whose subject garners so much attention on the web. -bobby 20:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep conditional on references being found and incorporated into the article that demonstrate verifiability and notability before this AfD closes. Otherwise weak delete due to lack of demonstrated notability. Note also that the first line defines Identity 2.0 as "the anticipated revolution of identity verification" (emphasis mine), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the term was coined much like "Web 2.0" as a marketing term, it certainly is being used within the identity industry in discussions around technologies such as CardSpace and OpenID. The Identity Workshop has occurred multiple times now with a focus on Identity 2.0. 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.146.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep - a term and concept heavily (and increasingly) used in industry and academia (since when is "I have never heard of this" an acceptable AfD nomination?) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, since this is a discussion, not a vote. The arguments to keep basically amount to arguments to keep The Colbert Report, not the article under discussion here. The arguments against this particular article are very strong and no one successfully countered them. —Angr 08:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Colbert Report recurring elements

As the article defines itself at the top, it is "a partial catalog of...recurring segments, running gags, catchphrases, quotes, and other miscellany." I've had a {{primarysources}} tag at the top for over three weeks now, and a note on the talk page for a few days, and absolutely nothing has been done to improve this article over that period of time. To repeat what I said on the talk page:

This article is full of unsourced original research and speculation (everything colbert "seems" to be), and I doubt sources other than the show itself can be found for 90% of what's in the article, and even many of those things would count as excessively in-depth plot summary. It reminds me of the sort of excessive cataloging that occured for YTMND and Homestar runner before we banished such research to their own wikis. Now that Stephen Colbert has wikiality, I think we can transwiki most of this over to there and get all the original research out of wikipedia.

Precedents for this seem to include

And especially

A list of recurring jokes without secondary sources is unverifiable original research, and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Things like Truthiness, which have recieved major media attention, and are therefore verifiable from sources, already have their own articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research, as nominated. Transwiki if you must keep this material! SunStarNet; 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bloated amount of material that is really not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total trash, precedents are solid, and most of the other Colbert stuff should be trashed too. It violates most elements of WP:NOT. It violates a fair amount of elements of WP:NOT.Tony fanta 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there might be some scraps in there worth merging to the main article and/or episode list, if anyone has lots of time on their hands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Colbert has become quite the phenomonon in popular culture, Stephen being listed as one of the most influential people in 2006. The Report is not YTMND, Slashdot, or Homestar Runner. This article serves as a great reference point for anyone know wants to know more about the show, and personally, I can say that have in the past found the article useful when wanting to learn more about Colbert. Please don't be deletionist, this article could definitely use a lot of citations, but under WP:NOR, television programs can be used as primary sources. The statements about the recurring themes are sourced - the source is the show itself. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't explicitly cite the subject of the article in cases where the subject is also a primary source - it's considered to be implied. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that you can cite a source to establish recurring themes within the source has been proven false before, as demonstrated by the deletion of the slashdot articles. Your claim that Colbert is more important than those sites, so we should relax our standards, is not true at all either. Themes in Star Wars was deleted because it was a pile of original research (someone went and documented all the coincidences they saw between the movies), and star wars is more important culturally than colbert and all these others combined. I'm not deletionist, I only believe in deleting articles when they fundamentally fail policy, and this article absolutely does so by being impossible to verify without redoing all the research yourself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just wanted to point out that the above user (Cielomobile) had striked out some of my vote. That's pretty cold and I think their vote should be thrown out. Tony fanta 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a vote, this is a discussion, and people strike out comments once they have been addressed all the time (see RfA discussions). Notice that I did not actually delete part of your comment; I just striked it out (because it was complete rubbish). You are supposed to strike out a comment once you rescind it and then add the new comment (and thus, I am adding in your previous comment, with a strike through it, to note your original resoning, for context). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Night Gyr, I'm sure there are a number of websites that document some of the recurring themes (see colbertnation.com). Furthermore, as described in WP:NOR, television programs are acceptable as sources. My fingers are getting tired from echoing myself now. Also, you can view all of Colbert's episodes on comedycentral.com, so the themes are easily verifiable (and the episodes could be cited, if someone were to put the work in). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stephen Colbert has a multitude of information about him necessary to the internets. Unlike most television celebrities, he is not one-sided. Therefore, multiple facets of him came be expressed through this article. In addition, the sorry display of naysayers in this discussion is sickening. As a roving gang of disaffected morons, the above wish to express the power they don't have by deleting information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.118.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Stephen Colbert is a well-known public figure, and his show The Colbert Report is watched by millions. That said, I agree that the recurring segments section needs a good overhaul. I agree also that the article should be edited and elements moved to wikiality wiki. There is a need to keep this article but in a heavily modified form. I object to unlisted Tony Fanta's comment about trashing most of Stephen Colbert as this sounds like complete biase against a popular figure. I further suggest that his vote be disregarded for that reason. We must be objective about any decision to remove content.Kerojack, Argenta 22:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's OR, and any relevent info should be mentione in The Colbert Report. Edgecution 23:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any encyclopedic and verifiable content into the main article on the show. This reads like a second main article, and needs some cutting down to the more important material.Edison 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Complaining about OR in this matter is bogus, the only "research" that really can be done is watching the show (or is there a book or website cataloguing this stuff that I'm not aware of?), the information is useful and fairly important, given that the Report has a disproportionate amount of influence on American mass culture. On top of that, including even the barebones of the information in this article in the main The Colbert Report article would put that article far over the limit, so merging is, I think, out of the question. Furthermore, I suspect that if this AfD were a little better-publicized, WP:SNOW would apply, though of course that's just a sneaking suspicion rather than a well-reasoned opinion. No, the only option is to leave the article but conduct a massive overhaul. Lockesdonkey 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would WP:SNOW apply? That is only when it is clear the way an AFD will end up, which is clearly NOT the case here. Also, an article HAS to be able to pass WP:RS. This article can be greatly slimmed down and turned into 1 section in the main Colbert Report article. TJ Spyke 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of WP:NOR is that if we don't have secondary sources we don't include it, rather than go and do the research ourselves. Your claim that the only research that can be done is to watch the show is exactly the same reason that this is up for deletion. The slashdot lists were deleted because the only way to verify them would be to read slashdot; this is no different. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the page needs to be heavily edited and rewritten in places, but in a show like this that is very much based around its recurring elements, (the word, better know a district etc) the page is very relevent. Precedent for keeping is The Daily Show recurring elements (although this needs work too). Raemie 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the need of Colbert-fanbois trying to sabotage every relevant discussion about the articles that are involved with him or the show. I will not deny that he is a somewhat popular figure, but he is not a phenomenon, his show has been on the air on cable for 1 year, and there is no guarantee that he will be on more than another, possibly likely, but WP is not a crystal ball. I don’t see how he warrents as many articles as he has. Just because a small handful of editors like the show does not mean that there is a place for all these articles. WP will not make any sense in the future if all this fancruft is contained. And I don’t see where a single one of the keep votes should have any weight to them. They just say NPOV things like “He is a phenomenon, we must worship him and add every detail about his show possible.” I don’t like or dislike him, but please, let’s just keep things simple and not spread every reference or so-called facts all over. And why would SNOW apply here? That's just a really blantant comment to make, you just assume if I advertise this AFD (which is not the point, we are discussing, hopefully among editors with concerns over notability rather than if they like something) that everyone would vote keep? A lot of valid votes are made for delete, and that is just fine. Tony fanta 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:OR, WP:NOT. Fancruft, original research, misuse of Wikipedia as a fansite. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, go make a Colbertwiki on Wikia or something instead Bwithh 00:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, then, delete all the Dragon Ball Z and Naruto episode summaries. Also, two of the three are basically the same argument, and OR can be addressed by changing the article to having a bit more descriptions, and less commentary. That's kinda condescending that you keep saying 'make a Colbert wiki', as if the delete is already decided, and clouds the issue as well. If you hate clicking, DO NOT click here. 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia = Fancruft. Enjoy your goddamn paradox.
  • Keep per all keep votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Wikiality is a parody, like Uncyclopedia, not an appropriate place for serious Report-related fact archiving. Sailorptah 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a great point. The ideas of putting it on a Colbert wiki presume that the Colbert wiki is actually serious. I don't know how many of the delete voters have visited his wiki, but it's an absolute joke. This is a serious article that actually documents facts, and there really isn't any place for it other than this wiki. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Memory Alpha is written from an in-universe perspective. They have different standards, but it;s a better place than here for this stuff. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, under WP:NOR, television programs are acceptable as sources, so why is this a problem? It is implied that the show is the source, and this article is in no way very analytical, so it really shouldn't be an issue. If you think it's a problem that there are not enough inline citations, fix it yourself instead of taking the easy way out by deleting the article. Personally, I find there to be nothing wrong with the use of the show as a source. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, strongly suggest we do not do try to transwiki this information to Wikiality.com due to the fact that the Wikiality.com site makes no hesitation that the facts contained within it are "truthiness" and not true facts. The Wikiality.com site makes no attempts at keeping the information on the site to any kind of standards. The pages are filled with made up facts, and the owners of the page encourage the editors of the site to make up outragous claims about Colbert on the site. That's the whole concept behind "wikiality" to begin with. While Wikiality.com can be a very entertaining site, it was never intended to be any kind of actual fact-based encyclopedic-style page. It is, point blank, a parody site. These Wikipedia wiki pages do have integrity and are documented as much as possible. This page is the only site on the web with information like this about The Colbert Report that is well-maintained and held to some kind of standards by a community of people with fluent knowlege about the subject (i.e. the fans who watch the show). Nofactzone 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As said above, even if no other place currently exists to hold the information, that's not a reason we need to keep it here. If it's only at its current level because it's written by expert, then it fails the requirement that articles be written by citing sources, rather than experts spouting their opinions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are multiple places that the information could be housed - but not in a Wiki format. For example, I could easily put this information on my Stephen Colbert fan site, where according to discussion here it may be a better place for it to be, but I choose not to because I realize the benefits of having multiple editors maintain the information. Instead, I simply link to this page when using information from it. Keeping the information here on Wiki helps it to be monitored and edited more frequently and by more editors, which keeps it more accurate and relevant. Banishing the page to Wikiality.com virtually ensures its demise and its accuracy due to the fact that it will receive many less hits and will not be maintained to the accuracy level that information is maintained here on Wiki. It is hard to cite sources for information such as this television show, since the primary source is the show and since attempts to cite mainstream news articles and blogs as sources tend to be rejected by the administrators. This page gets updated on an almost daily basis due to the fact that relevant information from the show can change the status of different recurring elements so quickly. It's hard to cite sources when the information is so current that there are no sources to cite. It has been mentioned that the show is only one year old. Any books that come out within that short of a time period about virtually any pop culture phenomenon would be geared towards fans anyway, and not have much historical significance (or much documentation), and anything with true historical weight will not appear until long after the show has made its impact. I would support moving this site to be a sub-site of The Colbert Report or List of The Colbert Report episodes, but I do think that this information is relevant to the subject of The Colbert Report.Nofactzone 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of this information isn't from the program, it's analysis and speculation about that information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. True, there is a fair amount of analysis that is original research, but the majority of the information is simply observation that involves no depth of analysis and could be cited with segments from the show. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - With a little bit of cleanup, it should be a fine article. dposse 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge How can you document and cite the sources of this information except the television show itself? This theme itself is not substantial enough to have its own page, but merging verifiable information would provide more explanation on the main page. deathmf 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must reiterate: The recurring elements article is already too long. It's 89 KB already. The basic Colbert Report article is also getting a bit big, at 37 KB. Even if we kept only the barebones of the article, we'd have to split this or some other section off all over again. Lockesdonkey 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-Strong Keep - This is one of wikipedia's most comprehensive articles. It would be a HUGE mistake to delete it. --Mr Beale 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page needs a lot of work, and is currently mostly based on primary material (the show itself), but that's not to say that it can't be improved. The show has gotten a ton of press coverage, and I'm pretty certain that some of that coverage has at least mentioned, if not discussed to some extent, the various recurring elements. In particular, Better Know a District has been discussed in the LA Times, for example, and "the Word" is discussed in most interviews/articles on the show itself and the news coverage regarding Truthiness and Wikialty. There's plenty of room for improvement with appropriately sourced, verifiable, and non-OR content. Schi 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better know a district already has its own article, The Word ought to be in the main article if it isn't, and the rest is just analysis and speculation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better Know a District has its own article? Wow, that's news to me. But nevertheless, respectfully, I think you're oversimplifying a bit, Night. There's a lot of original analysis and speculation in that article which needs to be dealt with, but the lists of recurring segments and characters are fair. Lists of minor characters are explictly permitted by our deletion policy on minor characters. Recurring segements, on the other hand, can form the basic anatomy of a variety/comedy show like Colbert's, particularly when these segments are specifically denoted by onscreen titles. This is still far less detail than having an article for every episode, which has been upheld in the case of Category:Simpsons_episodes, or List of vehicles in The Simpsons, which survived three nominations for deletion, or the individual articles on every recurring sketch on Saturday Night Live (see list here). As for the examples you list above, lists of Slashdot jokes and the like are inherently different, because we allow using TV shows as a primary source but not forums and social networking websites. "Themes in Star Wars" probably should have been rebuilt from the ground up rather than entirely nuked -- Themes in Blade Runner is decently referenced, and quite a good read. Again, I suggest renaming this or possibly splitting into multiple articles in order to tighten the focus and avoid attracting cruft. -- Bailey(talk) 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Precedence I have seen, such as articles related to The Simpsons, is that information taken from simply watching the show is acceptable, while information from behind the scenes and out-of-universe must be sourced. The article is not analysis and speculation as claimed by the user who wishes to delete the page, but a recording of notable recurring elements, nothing more. What work could be done is specification, possibly in terms of instances a subject is mentioned, to be deemed a recurring element. Also, just because no one has attempted to improve it does not mean no one will. In the vein of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you cannot predict that no one will make an effort and nominate it based on that prediction. -- Viewdrix 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What simpsons-related articles have survived AfD? I've seen several deleted. Who decides what's a notable recurring element, other than through analysis and speculation? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's ridiculous, Night. If we used that logic, all lists that involved any amount of thinking to create would be deleted. There have been recurring elements articles for plenty of other subjects (see Bailey's comment above). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not supposed to have to think--we're supposed to be able to look it up somewhere else. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, there is a difference between original research and thinking. If you're implying that we're just supposed to copy other sources, you are mistaken (that would border on plagiarism). A number of lists involve more than just looking at secondary sources, for example List_of_calypso-like_genres, the creation of which without a doubt involved some level of thought. Even if you have sources, you still have to decide which items deserve to be on the list! But really, I digress, that's completely beside the point. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the idea that it can stand to use some cleanup. Like that biography section to be merged into Stephen Colbert (character)- I think we've waited long enough for that. - The Lake Effect 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMHO, this passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test. It's huge and should probably be stripped down to much more basic descriptions, but that's no reason to delete it. —Brent Dax 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just stupid. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but trim down to the more noteworthy elements. The article is verifiable (by watching the show). I agreee that it pushes the boundaries of NOR, but the nature of all these articles, once they get past a very basic summation of the television show (or other media), fall into that category. A list of characters, if there is no other references than the show, could be construed as OR. A slippery slope we already descended LOL Seaphoto 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how many of the editors here have read the new Rolling Stone cover story excerpt, but there's an interesting quote by Colbert in there regarding Wikipedia: "COLBERT: While my character's history may not be always perfectly consistent, if you, like, are Web-crazy, and there are a few of them out there, you go to Wikipedia. There's my bio and there's my character's bio, and then there's my character's history, which is slightly different than my character's bio." I just found that amazingly funny in lieu of the discussions happening here. Nofactzone 05:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Windsor

non notable Hilton in Windsor, Ontario; kind of large, but not as large as some. Notable? Brianyoumans 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Not so notable by itself, but perhaps we should add it to the Windsor, Ontario page. A sentence wouldn't hurt. -bobby 20:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge. Would mentioning the Hilton in the Windsor article actually add anythinhg to the Windsor article? It would only serve to just list a hotel. -- Whpq 21:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Windsor, Ontario per above. JYolkowski // talk 21:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything worth merging. TJ Spyke 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel. It appears it's just another non-special hotel. --Marriedtofilm 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Don't merge as Wikipedia is not a hotel guide and we don't want hotels, restaurants etc etc spamming up city articles. Don't Transwiki to Wikitravel as Wikitravel is not part of Wikimedia, and such a move is not permitted under stated policy Bwithh 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your understanding of policy is incorrect. Transwikification can occur between any wikis, Wikimedia Foundation or otherwise. The relevant restriction is the copyright licensing of the source and target wikis. Wikitravel has a copyright licence that is incompatible with the GFDL, and that is what prevents transwikification to Wikitravel. (It's the same sitation as for Wikinews, whose licence is also incompatible with the GFDL.) Our Wikitravel article does explain this. Uncle G 10:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, I don't see why my understanding is wrong even after your explanation. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia afd page specifically says that articles cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel. Perhaps there's something subtlety being missed here by the afd page and myself (note that I'm talking - both before and now - about what is permitted, not what can be technically carried out) - if there is, then you should modify the beginning section of the Articles for Deletion page. Quote:"The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia—please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel or Wikinews" Bwithh 17:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now read what you added to that yourself, in what you wrote above. You added "as Wikitravel is not part of Wikimedia", which is not what is written, and which is wrong, as I explained. Uncle G 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not so much as a hotel or for being a Hilton, but being 22 sotries tall seems to be, with the lack of any notability guidelines that I can find for skyscrapers, tall enough to merit inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The guideline most applicable here would likely be WP:LOCAL, which is n active proposal. So what makes this hotel special? 22 stories for a hotel is not unusual. Nor is having a conference centre next door. -- Whpq 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wikia, though may be worth a mention at Jimmy Wales as well. Luna Santin 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns Wikia

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My type (dating)

Dictdef, if that, unless I'm missing something. This phrase is no more than the sum of its parts.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Article is useless - content shall best be added to European Union. Continents mean nothing in the world today. --ZeeLion45 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergent BioSolutions

Promotional company article. No verifiable references are provided, and it does not pass WP:CORP. An attempt at a prod was simply removed by an anonymous editor, so moving along to AfD. Recommend speedy deletion. Elonka 20:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Perhaps the article could use some copyeditting, but they are know for their anthrax vaccine, and they have been reported on by independent news sources as shown by Marriedtofilm. -- Whpq 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 22:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merely getting (even a lot of) press coverage doesn't in itself mean anything much in terms of encyclopedic notability. Notability here comes from the fact that this is the sole licensed manufacturer of anthrax vaccine in the US, and one of a small handful in the world due to tight state control of such operations (for obvious reasons). Article does need cleanup though Bwithh 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Smallville. --Ezeu 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville Places (Season 5)

Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to every little thing on a television show. This is the only "places" article I've found so far, but if others are found...they should be attached to this AFD nomination. RobJ1981 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Discuss eventual merge in the respective talk pages. --Ezeu 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aricent

This article fails WP:CORP. The 88 unique search results do nothing to bolster notability, nor does anything cited in the article. Erechtheus 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a rename for an established company which has made significant contributions to communications R&D, and has played an important role in Indian outsourcing. tstrudley 13:00, 31 October 2006 (PST)
  • Comment If this is indeed an established company and not a spinoff, why is there any need for a new article on the subject matter? Shouldn't the old article simply be updated and moved with a redirect left behind? Erechtheus 04:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that you have identified the correct solution: the old article (FSS) has been updated and copied to the new article (Aricent) - all that remains is to put a redirect in place. tstrudley 12:31, 1 November 2006 (PST)
Keep. It is a new name for a company which has made history in India. This is the only location on the web with the evolution of the single largest equity buy-out in Indian history to date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SatsJ (talk • contribs)
  • CommentAre you suggesting that there is an original research problem with this article? I don't recall any offline sources cited. I'll have to look deeper. Erechtheus 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.No , the problem is not with the offline sources . I meant that this article provides information on web , about a company,( which has been renamed )which attracted the largest PE buy out due to the it's role in communications software , Indian outsourcing and HR practices . The buying firm KKR is known for it's large buy outs and has a successful history of last 3 decades.
Keep. A company worth $900,000,000 is certainly a lot more notable than every single song on every album of some moderately notable rock group and most everything else on Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 14:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flextronics is no longer associated with Aricent though it retains a 15% stake. It might provide misleading information to the user
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as non-notable (CSD G4, A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrebatus.com

Prod contested. No claim of notability to meet WP:WEB. Also, this article was created by User:Arrebatus, currently blocked indefinitely for "willful and repeated spamming of this site". Also, a previous incarnation was deleted by prod on July 24, 2006. -- Scientizzle 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Trödel. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth briefs

May not be notable enough for wikipedia. Merit Merit 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasensory Sexual Responsiveness

Nonexistent "medical" condition page created as joke. Has no google hits. Creidieki 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is in no way a joke. If you read through Southern Medical Journal Volume 99, Issue 2, they have a brief discussion of this condition, which has no official name (thus the reason for no google hits). I simply used the unofficial name provided in the journal when writing my article. Timtim65 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which article is that description in? I'm having trouble finding it from the titles (which are rather difficult to get through). -- Creidieki 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The table of contents for that issue is here. Certainly nothing looks remotely relevant. Fan-1967 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozura Mobile

Notability concerns, seems like spam, not encyclopedic. Very limited references. The article has been previously speedy deleted (g11) and was recreated. The new article is not substantially different to the old. I think it be should be Deleted under SPAM/Notability guidelines. MidgleyDJ 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, with or without sock/meatpuppetry. Luna Santin 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-Mockery

Website which doesn't seem like it meets WP:RS/WP:V. No reliable sources mentioned in the article, none found either. Delete unless sources are found. Wickethewok 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep How is anything apart from the site history in the article any less verifiable than anything found on any entry at Category:Comedy_websites? Is the suggestion credible that Wikipedia editor Wikethewok is targeting the entry for this specific humor website because of its satire of electronic music fans (ravers)? 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Brian W. Goosen

http://www.answers.com/topic/i-mockery, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=i-mockery.com, http://www.richmond.com/news/output.aspx?Article_ID=3684718&Vertical_ID=155&tier=20&position=2

  • So far, the only non-trivial thing is the Richmond thing, the rest are just blogs or links to the website. I'd like the opinions of some editors who don't frequent the site for an unbiased perspective. Wickethewok 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immature rantings aside, "Can't verify information in article" is listed directly under "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I would suggest that some consideration be given as to the nature of the site and it's article. The article is a description of the site itself, it doesn't have any claims to be verified. Furthermore, while the sources link to the site, there are quite a few of them. True, it is hazy as to whether or not it follows guidelines, but the authors obviously made an effort to do so. It's difficult to provide ironclad third party sources for a site like I-Mockery, but those who contributed to the article did their best to back up the descriptions. Since it is obviously not some just quick self promotion for some twelve-year old's personal blog, I would argue that some leeway should be given. Beyond that, you agree that the Richmond link is reliable. The reason you gave for deletion was that "No reliable sources mentioned in the article, none found either. Delete unless sources are found." Well, though it is only one reliable source, isn't that enough? As previously stated, I would argue that some consideration be given.

  • Neutral but I'd like to point out that the I-Mockery forum is asking people to come and "save the Wikipedia article". [60] That might explain the rapidly growing number of votes from anonymous editors. Pascal.Tesson 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that relevent at all?
  • What are you trying to imply? I-Mockery is a site with over 100,000 unique views daily, it's not as if a handful of people are trying to sabotage Wikipedia's system for all the prestiege having a Wiki supposedly confers. This page was submitted by persons not affiliated with I-Mockery or its staff and is sourced from the information available through the autobiography on the site itself and apparently some experience on the message boards. It serves as a reference for anyone interested in the history of I-Mockery, and it is undeniably a useful document for someone seeking that information; It clearly falls within the mission and purpose of Wikipedia at large. Trying to remove this information serves no purpose other than to fulfill this administrator's personal agenda, whatever it may be, and I feel he represents Wikipedia poorly in doing so.
  • Strong Keep: I-Mockery is a very prominent humor site and its page on Wikipedia isn't there to merely promote it with free advertising. You might as well flag the Something Awful page for deletion too.
  • What's wrong with self-references anyway? On the Something Awful entry, 11 out of 17 references go back to somethingawful.com itself. How else is a website like this supposed to GET references?

So what's the verdict so far?

  • Vandalizing userpages is not the way to go guys. You're only hurting your own cause. Yeah, you, [IP ADDRESS REMOVED, FOR SERIOUS]. A simple discussion is all that is required. You're welcome to nominate whatever other articles you see fit for deletion (including ones I have worked on, though they are easily sourceable/verifiable), but that is unrelated to the matter at hand. Wickethewok 17:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that so far, you've yet to answer any questions? It's hard to have a discussion with someone who won't comply.

  • You still need one more reliable source. So far you have the Richmond one, which is good. But you still need a second as WP:WEB specifies "multiple" secondary sources. What further questions do you have? Wickethewok 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB is the relevant guideline. It says in relevant part "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section." We are often more generous at AFD and keep if the relevant proof appears here. The only independent reliable source produced thus far about the site is the Richmond.com source first mentioned by Caknuck. The article has no References section, so it can't meet WP:WEB based on the references. I checked the external links, and none of them are independent reliable sources. I can't see any criteria of WP:WEB that the article meets, so deletion is the answer that accords with our policies and guidelines. GRBerry 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: WP:WEB states that the article "must" meet at least one the criteria (1 to 3) for notable content on the web. I-Mockery meets at least 1 and 3. The WP:WEB does not clearly state that an article must have more than one source - this seems to be an interpretation of it. As stated above, the policing of Wikipedia policy is extremely inconsistent. There are several other humour related websites (SA, Newgrounds, etc.) that do not meet your specific guidelines, nor do your own articles. I would like to know how to seek mediation to resolve this, as I do not believe Wickethewok is a reliable source.
  • I don't see how it meets criteria #1 (multiple reliable non-trivial sources) or criteria #2 (no awards) or criteria #3 (distributed via a well-known independent online newspaper or magazine). The "multiple" part comes from criteria #1. Also, just because there might be other content on Wikipedia that should be removed, doesn't necessitate this being kept either. I recommend you bring up your issues with Newgrounds and SomethingAwful on the appropriate talk pages. Wickethewok 19:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous. The site itself has been mentioned in actual magazines. The man who runs the site has appeared on Food Network and Comedy Central. I-Mockery isn't just some stupid little kid's website.
  • Keep: In addition to the other secondary sources given, there is yet another source in the Times-Herald of Port Huron, MI.

"i-mockery")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Times-Herald (search for "i-mockery" when visiting that URL) The two newspapers sources, the television credits on the Food Network and others, the MSNBC.com source, the reference in Maxim magazine, the large volume of links to other websites, as well as the primary source of the site itself seem to close this issue of "no sources". This whole issue seems trivial at best.

  • I-Mockery.com's "Pixel Pals" is currently pending acceptance at Comic Alert.

Ref: http://www.comicalert.com/comics/9546-pixel-pals/

  • I-mockery's April Fools joke was changing their layout to fit that of Newgrounds' for the day. Here is one example of an online news article having commented on this stunt, along with other humor site's jokes for the day

Ref: http://www.theshadowsun.net/collection/view/72


  • Wicketthewok, how can you call so many sources "trivial" - that sounds more like your own opinion rather than a fact. Confirmed appearances on television shows via IMDB and a video clip of one of the appearances, scanned pages from professional magazines, audio clips from professional radio show interviews, proof of work on other professional web sites such as Cracked Magazine. What more could you possibly need? The people here have gone above and beyond making a big effort to comply with Wikipedia and to make the I-Mockery entry all the better, and you're shooting each one of them down with complete disregard, even describing them as "the rest are just blogs or links to the web site" - how is an audio clip from a radio station interview a blog or a link to the web site, how is an interview on the Sacramento Bee merely a blog, etc. etc. I'm not attacking you personally, but it appears as though you are the one "hurting your own cause" when you say things like this to people who are just trying to work this situation out.


  • Strong Keep: References section added with links to print material Maxim Magazine and Yahoo! Internet Life, as well as clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
  • Most of these new links seem to be about the site's creator rather than the website. Maybe there should be an article about Barr instead and a couple sentences from this merged into that instead. The VH-1 blurb doesn't mention the website at all and the Richmond piece is more centered on him. There seems to be more on him than on the website. What do ya folks think of that idea instead of other proposals? Wickethewok 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger Barr is the owner of the site and most of the ideas for the website come directly from him, so that's a good point wikithewok. However, changing the entry to Roger Barr would be more about Roger Barr than the material on the webpage(which is what people are interested). ON top of that it's hard to have an interview with an Internet site appear in a magazine, or to have an internet site appear on live television(and keep it interesting). The site is the material Roger Barr (and others) produces, and the material is what people are interested in. Nobody cares about Roger Barr. In this sense the wikipedia details some of the available material on the website, and the referances show that material appearing on life television. I think this wikipedia entry would be worthless if it was just about Roger Barr. If you want "referances" to things about i-mockery look at the "External links" section which actually links to I-mockery and the material on the site. If there was link/referance to the "humorous articles" themselves how would that stand?
  • "Nobody cares about Roger Barr" - Apparently the above sources you mentioned do. This includes the Richmond article, of which he is the primary subject, not the website. The TV appearances seem to be based on the fact that he rather enjoys Boo berry, rather than runs a humor website. Wickethewok 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the TV appearances also mention the fact that he runs a Boo Berry website, which is an offshoot of I-Mockery.com, which DO make it relevant to I-Mockery as well as Roger Barr.
  • It's pretty hard to interview a website. HELLO MR. WEBSITE HOW ARE YOU CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL MR. COMPUTER? *no response* Notice websites require some type of Human being behind them to create/manage them(kind of like this website eh), presto, Roger Barr is that person and he was the I-mockery "representative". He also wrote the material on the website, so he was on these shows representing the material on i-mockery. This is sort of like interviewing a popular musician, you don't interview their music you interview THEM, but the material of interest, that which made them popular in itself, is the music and ideas-- which they themselves are representing by being interviewed. Isn't the purpose of these referances to show that I-mockery is a popular internet attraction? Also have you read anything on I-mockery yet? You might notice that most of the articles written are written from a personal perspective, which is another reason why it was about "Him" and not the "Website", because the material on the website is often written from a personal perspective. Also, Roger Barr wouldn't be "Popular" enough to appear on television without the popularity of his website.
  • Two more sources, this time from Yahoo Internet Life and Maxim.
http://www.i-mockery.net/media/yahoo-internet-life-2001.jpg (Martin Yan: Homocidal Chef)
http://www.i-mockery.net/media/maxim-feb-2001.jpg (Boo Berry)
I would also like to know to whom we can appeal if Wickethewok continues this bizarre crusade. ChojinSix 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is dangerous.
  • It may help if we knew which facets of the article needed to be verified.
  • Here's another valid reference for I-Mockery, an interview about the site on West & Wylder 95.5 WTVY FM, which covers a lot of the site's history and is definitely about the site more than about Barr.
http://www.i-mockery.com/rog-radio.mp3
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete with a nod to G11. Luna Santin 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ToyshipGames

nn flash games site, alexa of 601,635 [61], fails WP:WEB Tony fanta 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, although if the popularity continues to grow, it may one day achieve the sort of notability editors here seem to be seeking. Luna Santin 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies vs. Humans

I've had some extensive discussions on the talk page about the notability and verification of this game. It sounds like a really neat game, but it's still not very well established. The game is roughly a year old and, as I mentioned on the talk page, its rules are still changing and its popularity is unclear and subjective; evidence of the game's popularity seems almost anecdotal. There haven't been any secondary sources published- the only media coverage has been from some campus newspapers/blogs. I think the article is crystal balling a bit because the game is so new, and as it stands, the vast majority of information is unverifiable. Wafulz 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NFT. If & when this receives greater coverage, it can be recreated. -- Scientizzle 22:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not all things made up in school one day are non-notable. There are a slew of references of this game at the bottom of the article, and even though many have connections to colleges, that doesn't rule them out as completely useless. I'm concerned with the large copied amount of text copmprising the rules and the abundant number of warning templates on the article (5 tags just for notability and sourcing?), but other than that this looks like a good clean article, with room for expansion (especially considering the arrests of some participants). --Daniel Olsen 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that if this were to be kept, the rules & equipment sections should be pared down to a generalized paragraph or two, such that it is no longer a how-to guide. However, only two of the links at the bottom (the "references") are independent of the game: the BGSU news story concerning arrests & the short Cornell piece on the game. That's not enough for my notability threshold and arguably not enough for anything in WP:N. -- Scientizzle 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough yet. Come back when there is multiple mainstream news coverage or other evidence of notability. I did like the notion of stunning a zombie with a marshmallow shot from a piece of PVC pipe. Maybe next year it will be as big a college fad as eating Goldfish or Streaking. Edison 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above. Fails WP:NFT, insufficient evidence of notability Bwithh 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable yet, no secondary sources. Fails WP:NFT. Perhaps when the game is played at multiple schools there will be enough evidence for notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.175.34.78 (talk • contribs) 03:25, October 28, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.224.173 (talk • contribs) — 71.197.224.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Wikipedia should help people keeep track of new social phenomenon, and this is clearly a growing trend. If I wanted to not be able to find out about new trends as they happen, I would buy a print encyclopedia. Why not use this article to establish the factual history of the game and let it grow from there? (Wikipedia would also be a good tool to compile the first list of schools that play this game.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.10.170 (talk • contribs)
That's all well and good, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia, not a listing of popular trends. --Wafulz 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filmjerk

nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa of 507,981, has many unsourced claims, and article creator is possible site creator. Tony fanta 22:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Fonseca

She's the director of a tiny local amateur theater company that gets two google hits--no reason to be in an encyclopedia. Calliopejen 22:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - no references provided despite requests, indicating that it probably hasn't been considered worth mentioning by anybody outside the University. Yomanganitalk 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus 14

A tradition at a single university, doesn't show any evidence of being interesting, influential or notable outside the local community where it takes place. FreplySpang 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and quite frankly, the list at pub crawl is getting out of hand. There needs to be some sort of quality control done on that. --Kinu t/c 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This bar crawl has a very long history and is well known by the 30,000 current students and hundreds of thousands of alumni of the university. New students are frequently referred to this article as the standard resource for the route and risks, the article has existed for some time already and it is kept up-to-date with current developments at all of the bars involved. However this article could feasibly be merged into University Park Campus. Also I believe the article is of interest to those outside the local community, especially anyone researching British drinking culture, a subject which is constantly in the media spotlight. --Danrhyn 13:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI can add little to the above arguments, merely second them all.
  • Keep This is one of the most prestigous bar crawls in the UK. I had heard about it long before I came to Nottingham and have had people come down to visit with the main intention to attempt it. This article is often used to save explaining to the new nottingham freshers who are unsure on details. Since the Introduction of "the mix" cafes there has been declined interest but this is mainly due to the fact that willoughby is still undergoing refurbishment (due to be completed within the next few weeks)---[Jason Garfitt] 10:40, 31 October 2006
  • Where are the third-party sources describing this event? I don't doubt that this article is describing something real, but if it can only be sourced from participants and/or students at the university, then there is no evidence of impact in an encyclopedic sense, as FreplySpang describes in the nomination. So may I request that those calling for this article to be kept please provide those?--SB | T 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - many encyclopaedic entries are not relevant or useful to lots of people, however this one seems to me to be extremely useful for the new students of this university, provides good memories for the alumni and is a good reference for risks and routes etc for not only the students themselves but also unsuspectinf friends...I know a good many students who have consulted this site, I do not see any reason why it should be deleted.

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

The result was delete with a nod to G11. Luna Santin 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZPages

This wikipage (NZPages) is for a non notable website that is not particularly recognised in its field and certainly not comprehensive (only claim to fame appears to be because it was started in 1997). I would infact guess that this entry was created for promotional purposes by the site owner hence he knows when it started (page creator has not edited any other wikipedia content) :-) --AGoon 22:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Google returned a number of relevant results, and one of them states that this website ranked no.1 in NZ. However I cannot see any third party websites, fails WP:NOR. Cheers -- Imoeng 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The "no. 1" rating was on a 2003 news item on another site registered to NZPages (www.kiwipages.co.nz/default.asp?t=10), and nowhere else, after they'd just done a big push to increase their "ratings" (from 1 millionth to 29000th in the world). If you google "NZPages.co.nz", omitting self-references and the word lotto you get less than 1000 hits. Interestingly NZPages has a domain mental.co.nz and the creator of the page was named mentaldev. It is an average site that promote hard - hence the wikipedia entry. --AGoon 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27&oldid=84138950"