Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology

[edit]

Redundant Article. Please see: Ahsanullah_University_of_Science_and_Technology,_Dhaka,_Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iftakheruddin (talk • contribs) 11:12, 11 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 Keep - the merge proposal can be discussed on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Lettrist International

[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Delete. BlueValour 19:27, 3 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, Konst.able 07:50, 11 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.C. Matthew Sim

[edit]

Diplomat and author. Looks like an autobiography so I would like a notability check. -- RHaworth 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:BIO due to multiple reviews on his work. (I'm responsible for the de-prod and de-speedy, but not the article creator.) zephyr2k 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more like an "about the author" blurb than an encyclopaedia article. Just being co-author of books that have been reviewed. The article cites no sources and so none of the claims are verified. Thryduulf 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Hes abviously an author, which gives him notability, but its correct that it looks like an autobiography and not an encyclopedia article. I say delete if it cant be rewritten. Aspensti 17:48, 10 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, Konst.able 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It no longer needs major cleanup. I've done it. More sourcing would be better, but as it stands now it's a short, stubbish article with more references than most Wikipedia articles.Noroton 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep per Noroton.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion (betting exchange)

[edit]

Insufficient assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering(talk/c)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Interdenominational Theological Center - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gammon Theological Seminary

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited school. I get 1,700 yahoo hits including wikipedia and mirrors. Could be a great school or could be a diploma mill, either way it lacks WP:V and notability. Arbusto 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can you please explain what criteria specifically this article does meet? I am not familiar with what you mean by "post-secondary school". Being a post-secondary school does not in itself grant an instituation a place here in wikipedia, no?--Andrew c 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there has been far too much of a sense in some places that pre-secondary schools may be inherently notable. Morgan Wick 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Interdenominational Theological Center. There's no reason for this piece of the organization to have its own page until its section gets too big for the main article. Vectro 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This article belongs in Category:United Methodist seminaries. It would be messy and inaccurate to have a merged article in that category. Gammon has a distinct mission in its service to its denomination and as an historically-black institution and a distinct identity, all of which argues in favor of keeping a separate article on Gammon. This AfD started with the argument that Gammon might be a diploma mill. When it was demonstrated that Gammon isn't a diploma mill, it might have been best to have withdrawn the AfD. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment'. Diploma mills can still be notable. There isn't a criteria for deltion based on this. I commented on content forking. I see no reason to fork out this content. In fact, the parent article has much more information comparatively than the main article. The article does not say why it is notable, and shouldn't have been forked out, per guidelines. That is why it should be deleted, not because of the diploma mill claim.--Andrew c 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a college, it is notable.Edison 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's not notable enough to be in an article of its own. NauticaShades 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is a great idea until the encyclopedic content grows to unbalance the parent article or the parent article is just too big and needs to be split. Right now, that is far, far away. GRBerry 01:00, 13 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. Hopefully the WP:V concerns can be addressed. Deizio talk 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Geneva Theological Seminary

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited school. I get 544 yahoo hits including wikipedia and mirrors. Could be a great school or could be a diploma mill, either way it lacks WP:V and notability. Arbusto 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is its a school or a diploma mill? WP:V is a serious issue. Arbusto 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the footnote to that section is mentions accreditation as well as WP:V. This article lacks both. Arbusto 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take 'the government's' the word as truth, yes. "Id est," if the Departmnet of Education's say so is determines if something is acccredited. Benn Newman 23:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great so you're using this as a political statement. 1) The United States Department of Education DOES NOT accredite schools; it is done through private organizations elected by schools. 2) This articles lacks WP:V if its a school. Accreditation is the WP:V of schools other than press articles, etc. 3) What makes this notable? Arbusto 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some links for your claims. I saw an ad in Christianity Today for the school (no mention of it in any article). I typed in "Gazette and New Geneva Theological Seminary" and got nothing of value. Fails notability. Also I would like you to deal with the admin. concerns of you disputing my afds before carrying on. Arbusto 04:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't bother clicking on links in your "rapid check"? Arbusto 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not "disputing your" Afds whatever that means. I believe wikipedia should have articles on all institutions of higher learning worldwide, particularly when they are already included on lists at wikipedia. I would respectfully suggest that you not nominate articles for deletion if you can not tolerate differing viewpoints. As for your request for links, the publications I named were among the initial hits in google. Regarding your last comment, WP:CIV is a link you should immediately review. --JJay 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links to support your "rapid check" that you claim "brought up enough press coverage"? Arbusto 05:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you enter in a false reference? That article you cited does not mention New Geneva[1], which explains why you didn't give any link[2]. The Gazette article you cited (October 2, 1998) is NOT online, try searching the name, date, and title[3]. That's why you didn't link to the article. I can't find anything about this place at lexis-nexis.com nor can I even confirm the source. Is that the best you can do an offline local news source from 8 years ago (that of course assuming you provide a valid link for it-as you said above you found it on google)? Arbusto 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided are real [4]. As stated in my first message, they confirm everything in the article. Do not make accusations and personal attacks without basis. Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIV. --JJay 00:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIV can be tiresome but you are only encouraging it by claiming a quick check proves notability without providing any proof.
HOW ARE YOU USING THIS AS A REFERENCE FOR NOTABILITY? THIS IS REALLY A MENTION OF GENEVA (that applies to your claim that there is "enough press coverage")?

The New Geneva Theological Seminary, Colorado Springs, Colorado, has named Dominic Aquila as its president. Aquila was instrumental in establishing the Colorado Springs campus of Knox Theological Seminary (now New Geneva) in 1993.[5]

Is that the best you can do to justify another keep vote in one of my afds? Arbusto 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does that prove notability? Also please provide the "many" links to support your "rapid check" that you claim "brought up enough press coverage". Or this is just another afd you've disrupted. Arbusto 02:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have said nothing about many links. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I would urge you, though, to redact your claims that the school was not verifiable as well as your false statements regarding the references. And for the last time, please review WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your last comment is a violation of all three. --JJay 03:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to AGF, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." This just another afd that you involved yourself in to make a point and attack me in when you contribute nothing to the discussion. I again ask where are the links that you found that "brought up enough press coverage". Arbusto 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attacked you nowhere on this page. It makes no difference to me who nominates articles on AfD. I will say that your continued attacks, attempts to personalize this discussion, hostility to opposing viewpoints and general uncivil tone is completely uncalled for. I won't respond anymore to this type of behavior here. --JJay 03:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply those links you claimed to have. The other issues should be dealt with here. Arbusto 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing administrator. I have added two valid references (Christianity Today, Colorado Springs gazette articles) that address the nominator's stated concerns regarding WP:V. The nominator has repeatedly removed the references from the article [6], [7], [8], [9] while inserting fact tags. See talk page for further details [10]. This is an unacceptable way of managing a deletion nomination. --JJay 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the links you claimed to have to verify that content? Arbusto 17:52, 15 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, Arbusto 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be a legitimate seminary for Presbyterian ministers. According to a story here the president was elected the moderator for the next national conclave - a fairly big deal. I see various faculty associated with the university appearing online. They may not be an accredited university, but since they are only producing ministers, they probably don't care. We list high schools and elementary schools, why not a seminary? Brianyoumans 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting we should keep an article about this seminary because the current seimnary president once served as the "moderator of the 34th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America"? Is that what you are saying? For claims on the president belong at that afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Aquila.
The link you provide proves notablity how? The only mention of New Geneva is:

Aquila, the president of New Geneva Theological Seminary in Colorado Springs, Colorado, has served on a number of committees in the PCA, including the Covenant College Board and Mission to the World. He has preached and taught in Jamaica, Mexico, Canada, Ivory Coast, Kenya, England, Korea, Grenada, Ukraine, Trinidad, Myanmar, Spain and Morocco.[11]

Are they producing ministers? How many students attend? Is this bigger than a high school? Can you compare it to a high school? Does it have classrooms? Is it ran out of an apartment? Do the teachers have accredited degrees? How many teachers are there? Why isn't it accredited? Etc etc. Without such issues to be judged with WP:V independent from the place itself such as article will be about what it isn't (accredited) and what the group claims to be. That is not how article should be written.
Oh yeah, we don't keep all high schools and elemnetary schools. So that's not a reason to keep. Arbusto 07:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How? You keep voting in these schools afds keep. This is not a vote, this is a discussion. You will not be taken seriously without explaining how it is WP:V. Arbusto 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a chill pill.Edison 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has references, therefore it meets WP:V. JYolkowski // talk 20:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two "references". One local one from 1998 and one from 2001, which says the name of school president. Does that make it notable? Arbusto 23:49, 15 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. Dakota 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Tennessee Bible Institute

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited school. I get 199 yahoo hits including wikipedia and mirrors. Could be a great school or could be a diploma mill, either way it lacks WP:V and notability. Arbusto 00:19, 11 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. Deizio talk 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefield College

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited school created by an IP in August 2005. I get 2,500 yahoo hits including wikipedia and mirrors. Could be a great school or could be a diploma mill, either way it lacks WP:V and notability. Arbusto 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this place lacks notability it lacks sources. Thus, the article will always be about what it isn't (accredited) and what its website claims. It fails WP:V. For instance can you tell us how many students attend? One, two, or a million? Arbusto 01:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone adds references before end of AfD it'll no longer fail WP:V. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been up since August 2005, and no one has added any references of notability. Rather IPs have been constantly white washing accreditation issues. Arbusto 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply sources for notability. Wikipedia WP:V does not keep articles based on what "appears to be a legitimate". How many students attend? Is this bigger than a high school? Can you compare it to a high school? Does it have classrooms? Is it ran out of an apartment? Do the teachers have accredited degrees? How many teachers are there? Why isn't it accredited? Source for claiming its not a diploma mill? Etc etc. Without such issues to be judged with WP:V independent from the place itself such as article will be about what it isn't (accredited) and what the group claims to be. That is not how article should be written.
Oh yeah, we don't keep all high schools and elemnetary schools. So that's not a reason to keep. Arbusto 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the length of the following; you asked for some verifiable information. I think most of the following is too trivial to include in the article, but it all contributes to my sense that this is a legitimate institution, in existence for some years. First: looking at the catalog (catalog download) this is in fact a "distance learning" sort of thing - they send lecture tapes out to students, who work with a mentor agreed on with the seminary. It doesn't appear to be that large - their administrative bulliten lists something around 100 graduates. Here is a list of some graduates that I found online:

Kenneth Gentry and George Scipione, faculty members, Southern California Center for Christian Studies. (Scipione is also an associate pastor at Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

David W. Hall, adjunct faculty, Knox Theological Seminary; Presbyterian pastor in Powder Springs, GA

Kevin M. Backus, adjunct professor, Western Reformed Seminary; an editor of the Christian Observer (“the Reformed Journal of Record since 1813”)

Mary Drabik (Provost), Joseph Guadagnino (faculty), South Florida Bible College and Theological Seminary

David Brame, Reginald Kimbro, and John Wagner, faculty, Geneva Reformed Seminary

R. C. Sproul, founder, Highlands Study Center, Bristol, VA

Richard C. Barcellos, faculty, Reformed Baptist Seminary

W. Gary Crampton, author of at least 10 books on theology, speaker

Frank Walker, faculty, City Seminary of Sacramento; associate pastor, Covenant Reformed Church in Sacramento, CA

Chuck Baynard, pastor of Clover Evangelical Presbyterian Church, an editor of the Christian Observer (“the Reformed Journal of Record since 1813”), faculty at Whitefield.

It is perhaps also notable that Whitefield is listed here in a listing of ‘’Options for Traditional Anglican Theological Seminary Education’’ on the website of “Diocese of the Holy Cross”, a group of traditional Anglicans in the US. --Brianyoumans 21:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I fail to understand how lists of people of an unaccredited online "college" have to do with WP:RS and WP:V. Can you show this is notable? Or why we should care that "faculty" at other unaccredited schools have online degrees from Whitefield.
If you have sources to show notability or WP:V please add them to the article, and I'll withdraw this nomination.Arbusto 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think this shows is that this is not a diploma mill; these look like pretty respectable people, I don't think they would all be claiming phony degrees. Second, although the school doesn't have many graduates, it appears to be fairly important within its little Reformed community - 2 of the editors of the Christian Observer (out of about 20) have degrees from this school, and lots of faculty at other seminaries.
Another point I think should be understood here: you are constantly pointing out that the school is unaccredited. The school IS accredited, by the only organization that it cares about, namely the Reformed Presbyterian Church, which recognizes it as a valid training school for pastors (from the catalog). The school states clearly in the same catalog that it does not have secular accreditation and that credits taken there may be invalid elsewhere. Brianyoumans 05:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have noticed that Arbusto has a habit of nominating for deletion pages relating to religious institutions. Some of these articles have needed deletion, and I have voted to delete them. On some of them, it seems like he has not 'done his homework' in advance, and has nominated pages that ended up being kept. Sometimes, also, he can be quite, er, robust in his defence of his nominations. I would advise people to look closely at pages that Arbusto nominates for deletion, and to not be intimidated by his responses. --Brianyoumans 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate unnotable unaccredited schools: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM) and unnotable diploma mills: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École supérieure Robert de Sorbon/ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University. There is a larger collection of these religious institutions that fail WP:V than places that are diploma mills, example, that lack WP:V. Thus, they get nominated more often.
I got a better idea. Why not give sources that PROVE this is notable instead of trying to attack me. If you can show its notable, I'll withdraw the afd. Arbusto 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comment seemed like a personal attack. I have been semi-away from Wikipedia for a little while, and the last time I encountered AFDs from you was about a month ago, when you were trying to get rid of 3 professors at Dallas Baptist Theological Seminary - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Underwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Hannah - two bestselling authors and a well-known historian of theology, all 3 of which survived AFD (Hannah just barely.) Certainly, everyone who nominates articles for deletion has their failures - I have myself - but I thought this was a notable enough pattern to mention. --Brianyoumans 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those two failed. So what? They ended up getting well-sourced and proved notability. Further, here is a afd I withdrew Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University recently. I withdrew it once clear and cut evidence of its WP:V was demonstrated. This evidence meant a drastic change it the article.[12] Arbusto 00:12, 16 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. Dakota 05:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Aquila

[edit]

President of an unaccredited and unnotable school and editor on an church newsletter. Fails WP:BIO Arbusto 00:22, 11 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. Deizio talk 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snapecast

[edit]

Non-notable podcast. Recommend delete or merge/redirect to Harry Potter fandom. cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:43, 11 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 06:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shada Oa

[edit]

Vanity page; Shada Oa and several other characters mentioned in the article are not in storyline canon and completely made-up. Drakhan 00:29, 11 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 All - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig P226 (Airsoft)

[edit]

Non-notable subject, and unencyclopedic article; articles on Airsoft and SIG P226 cover the topic well enough. UNHchabo 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion are the following pages:

--Sorry to keep adding more to this list, but I keep finding more. --UNHchabo 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all of these cases, the information belongs a) in the page for the real firearms, b) in Airsoft or one of the related articles (such as Airsoft guns), or c) on the webpage of the manufacturer/seller of these products. --UNHchabo 01:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment: Most of these pages are not ads, IMO. Rather, I think the editors who created those pages were trying to make pages analagous to what already exists for firearms, such as Heckler & Koch G36 and M4 Carbine. They even used the infobox template for firearms on some of them. I'm still for deletion, but if the reason matters, look at my original post. --UNHchabo 15:57, 11 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 06:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderdome (drinking game)

[edit]

Unsourced and Non-notable drinking game. A completely different version was previously deleted for this reason: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunderdome (drinking game). Since the article was entirely different than the last one, I figured this deserves another AfD look. Mangojuicetalk 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every drinking game was made up at some point, so why are others okay that is the worst logic ever if the others can stay this one should too. Besides it seems like it would be a good time to play with friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.46.192.201 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Smashy Canny, 21 (drinking game), Arrogance (game), Avalanche (drinking game), Bullshit (drinking game), Card blowing, Circle of Death (drinking game), Crazy 8's, Disassociation/Association, Drink while you think, Fuzzy Duck, Hi-Lo, Horserace (drinking game), Land Mine, Matchboxes, Ride the Bus, Ring of Fire (drinking game), Roman Numerals (game), Spoof (game), Ten Minute Warning (drinking game), Three Man, Up the river, down the river

That’s just including the ones with no mention of history, references or any external links. I may have added more information before uploading this page, but it seemed as though the information on the Thunderdome page was comparable to other pages.

A history of Thunderdome will be added shortly. Drinkgame 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that those other articles should also be deleted. But just because they haven't been deleted yet doesn't mean we shouldn't delete this one. Mangojuicetalk 01:40, 12 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. Dakota 05:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Veaner

[edit]

Claims to be "a common name for celebrity pet cockateils." Neologistic, 7 unique Google hits. Deprodded. Accurizer 01:29, 11 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 06:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Szymon Niemiec

[edit]

Does this guy actually meet WP:BIO? --Peta 01:38, 11 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. Dakota 05:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Your Heart Natural Foods

[edit]

Small US health food shop; delete --Peta 01:49, 11 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 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Kurland

[edit]

Appears to be a vanity piece; no independent evidence of notability provided. Delete --Peta 01:52, 11 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. Dakota 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bodrogi

[edit]

Does this person meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO? --Peta 01:51, 11 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 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant (game)

[edit]

Non notable game. Of course, Google won't say much although "combatant + Hudghton" returns 14 Ghits. The official website has a forum with a grand total of 12 posts... Actually, I'm wondering why I did not prod this or ask for deletion under the new G11... Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 11 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 RHaworth. MER-C 10:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kizzie Anna Hicks White

[edit]

No evidence this person meets BIO, delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 02:01, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Levinson

[edit]

Elabotate CV, delete --Peta 02:01, 11 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 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuffer Dandridge

[edit]

Fictional character on a talk-back radio show; the article dones't make much sense and provides no evidence why this should be in an encyclopedia. Delete. --Peta 02:03, 11 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 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jepson (photographer)

[edit]

No independent evidence of notability, delete --Peta 02:03, 11 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AKATHA, the Ancient Science of Sahaji

[edit]

Incomprehensible article which almost sems like a personal essay. It also was previously deleted as a copy vio. [13] Philip Gronowski Contribs 02:13, 11 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 - a large portion of the text is a copyright violation (a claim that the owner has given permission is not sufficient), and there seems to be no agreement as to an appropriate redirect. Yomanganitalk 09:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heel toe dance

[edit]

Non notable dance, WP:NOT something you create in one day, the external links has nothing on the dance as well Delete, or Merge to Hip hop dance, just not keep -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to hip hop dance and get a source other than "Mike" and his moves. It seems to be known, at least to some people. --Storkk 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I realize, this is not what it's all about, but it does seem to be a recognized name for these steps, and moreover is somewhat notable. The existing page needs a lot of cleanup, with the how-to clarified or removed, and perhaps ought to move to Heel Toe (dance); it is not useless to those who want a better article here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep even though it's written as a how to / dance class lesson, It is becoming more main stream and even checking alot of the google links here seem notable to me, if it isn't now, will be I believe soon, and is it always necessary to delete articles? But it really needs to be re-written. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per lack of google hits, any recent pop culture phenomenon would have more if it were truly well-known. >Radiant< 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The heel toe is a very mainstream dance. If you want numbers than look at google search results; everyone has heard of the crip walk and the harlem shake and if you do a search for 'crip walk dance' and harlem shake dance' there are 100,000 and 400,000 results respectively for each, while when searching for 'heel toe dance' 2.2 million results are found. Anyone who knows anything about hip hop dancing knows this move, hince it being listed on the hip hop dance wikipedia page before this heel toe page was written.
  • Strong Keep Highly popular dance step. Badly written articles are not the reason for deletion, they are a reason for improvement.
  • Merge to crip walk and remove copyrighted text copied from http://www.mikesmoves.com/heeltoe.html. As the copyrighted text covers almost the entire article I say we just redirect it to crip walk. - Wintran (talk) 00:48, 16 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 since this discussion has zero chance of resulting in deletion if prolonged. As Daniel Olsen points out, towns such as this will, by their very natures, be the subjects of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works, and thus satisfy the primary notability criterion. The article itself at the time of nomination cited one of them (a census report) and now cites two more (a community history, and a publication by Tanadgusix Corporation), thanks to TruthbringerToronto. (Good work.) If you see a town article with only a census citation, follow the example that TruthbringerToronto set here, find more published works about the town, and improve the article. Uncle G 10:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napakiak, Alaska

[edit]

Non-notable town with only ~350 residents. Supermath 02:41, 11 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 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror Conspiracy

[edit]

Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy book. Fails WP:BK and WP:V. Peephole 02:42, 11 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. Pac's Life is enough. -Splash - tk 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untouchable (2Pac song)

[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. IslaySolomon 02:43, 11 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. I would observe for future reference that losers generally get deleted, however, should it come to that. -Splash - tk 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Taylor

[edit]

Van Taylor is merely a candidate and has no redeeming qualities for being notable such as being a state legislator per WP:BIO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 02:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is also mentioned in Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. So far as I can tell, Taylor isn't notable enough to meet the guidelines, and as yet no article has been written about the race itself. Davemo 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use WP:C&E to delete articles. First, it's a proposed guideline. Second, it specifies in C&E not to use it to delete existing articles. - Lex 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Might merit an article (maybe in the future), but I still say delete. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. He's a major party candidate for US Congress. All this article needs is a couple more sources to flesh it out (and make it look less like a political ad). - Lex 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- informal precedent, which I strongly agree with, is that candidates are not notable simply for being candidates. They become notable when elected or do something else that satisfies our criteria for notability. If we have an article on him, we should have an article on everybody that's running against him. Not to do so would be fiddling with politics. --Storkk 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn candidate. Come back when the voters give you the nod. Deizio talk 15:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is he elected? No. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO (and proposed WP:C&E). -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a candidate for Congress, along with notable media appearances and a lot of activity in the article history demonstrate notability. If he loses the election, re-submit for deletion. If he wins, the article will be re-created anyway. SkerHawx 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, I can be persuaded Bulawdude. Let's go with a weak delete, although we need to crystallize our policy on this. SkerHawx 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- I think this article was originally posted by a campaign worker, given the original tenor and illustrations. The activity in the article history is because his campaign people or other persons interested in his electoral success keep vandalizing the article. If he is elected, then the article can be recreated.--Bulawdude 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This man is a major party candidate for Congress and his opponent DOES have a wikipedia page as well. Bulawdude and another individual keep inserting information they think will hurt the candidate while making sure to change anything they don't like such as a picture of the man in his Class A uniform (which Bulawdude asked for) and links within the article to things such as the Marine Corps Reserves.--Truthman20
    • Comment -- I don't think I was the one that asked for a new picture of Van Taylor.--Bulawdude 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment -- I was, see the talk page to see the source of all this vandalism crap. Unless you are the Taylor campaign head, Truthman20, in which case....well, you should probably know that a military uniform is a little unprofessional for a biography over someone recognized for their political actions. --Kugamazog 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- I think that the article is a stub and should be deleted, but replaced with an article on this election. However, in the absence of the election article, it should be kept. RydiaAngel 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think people should be able to find atleast some info looking this guy up. If he doesn't make it, then we can delete, but until then, he is somewhat noteable. However, Truthman20 and Bulawdude both seem to be juggling the page around repeatedly. I don't know which of the two is doing it, but I checked the version today vs the the version I left it yesterday, and they deleted the references section again. I'm kinda hinting to deleting it because someone pro-Taylor is cleraly not leaving the damn thing alone, but deleting the page may actually be more beneficial to them. He's not particularly a good candidate when he's on a site with facts...--Kugamazog 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Unless I made a mistake, I keep trying to put the references back in that get deleted. Sometimes it takes me more than one try to do it because of my poor technical skills. I agree with you, Kugamazog, that the only problem with this article is that somebody doesn't like the facts about the subject.--Bulawdude 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This is a major party candidate for US Congress, who won a primary, and is in a race that is competitive. Whereas the major parties in some districts offer up "sacrificial lambs" just so that somebody appears on the ballot, this is not the case with Tex-17. It's a competitive race where the incumbent has only a slight lead. Last year the incumbant won by only 4 pct points.[17] As of this writing, there are 111 links to him in news.google; articles discussing in the past two days have appeared in local publications [18], state-wide publications, [19], and even national publications, such as one yesterday by Wash Post, and one the day before by The Hill. To delete him would make WP's fair application of notability a complete farce. Yes, the articlce is a weak-stub, but it needs beefing up, not deletion. -- Sholom 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The news coverage could be used to argue that he's a major local political figure per WP:BIO. I considered changing my vote on that basis, but decided that he can't yet be considered a major local political figure. After all, if he loses the election, there's every possibility he'll sink into obscurity. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a competitive race for the House; it's worth keeping the article until the general election in early November. (If someone were to put a bit of time into creating a campaign article, I'd vote for a redirect.) John Broughton | Talk 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WatchingYouLikeAHawk. Akanksha 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm finding quite a few articles that he's the main subject of or is an important subject. Here are just a few - [20], [21], [22]. Seems to meet WP:BIO. Just to show how unbiased my opinion on this is, I'll disclose I'd prefer the other guy to win.--Marriedtofilm 03:11, 18 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. But we should understand that the article survives principally owing to his relation with Finisar, rather than having bought his name onto a building somewhere. Once Finisar is blue, standard practise would be to redirect+merge this article to that one. -Splash - tk 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry S. Rawls

[edit]

non-notable per WP:BIO. Vectro 02:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Anybody that gets a college of business at a major, accredited, and established university named after them is notable. Add in a dorm hall at yet another school of similiar, if not greater repute? I'm inclined to keep, but weakly, since there doesn't seem to be much else about him. But then, I doubt he's a publicity hound CEO anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept also as not only does he have the building named after him but he is a current CEO of Finsar, even if he doesn't like to be in the spotlight. Jedlink 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finisar probably should have an article, it's just nobody has bothered to do it. Whodathunk, more people care about Dragonball and Tribbles than companies doing over 300$ million in business. FrozenPurpleCube 03:46, 12 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Baptist Church

[edit]

nn church, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 11 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 somewhere. WP:DIGI need to be regularly poked and prodded until they work out where; there are no eternal get-out clauses. -Splash - tk 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikemon

[edit]

This character appears to be a very minor fictional character if anything (google gives 548 hits). Unless its going to be merged with a larger list, I don't see how this is anywhere near notable enough to include into wikipedia. I appreciate that there are some people who edit wikipedia who are very fond of the digimon series... but that doesn't change its relevance, and it should follow the guidelines of all fiction here: minor characters don't get their own page. Monk of the highest order 03:01, 11 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 assertion of importance, WP:V failure not addressed. Deizio talk 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orton hall hotel

[edit]

nn hotel Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All hotels by national brands like Best Western, etc get high google hits though. Jaranda wat's sup 03:55, 11 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 06:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Petty

[edit]

Not notable and fails WP:BIO despite some success of Bloodlust Software. I don't think we can reasonnably hope to find reliable third-party sources on the guy. Pascal.Tesson 03:05, 11 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. -Splash - tk 23:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Bröckers

[edit]

Non notable conspiracy theorist who wrote two books about his theories. Striver cruft! Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Peephole 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 85,700 Google hits [23]. Is considered a notable journalist by the German-language Wikipedia [24], which lists nine books he's published - I can't say what they're all about, because I don't speak German. If anyone does, some of that information should probably be translated and merged into the English article. Calling anything "Striver cruft" strikes me as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and certainly suggests that this nomination has an agenda behind it. --Hyperbole 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the coining of "Strivercruft" is not something I agree with, I can sympathize with the frustration that caused it to come about. With no disrespect meant to Striver, and casting no aspersions about his good faith, he has inflated the number of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles to an unmanageable level in an effort to gather support behind a wikiproject dedicated to the 9/11 "Truth Movement." So while it should be noted that there is an agenda behind nominating a great many of these articles for deletion, there is not neccessarily anything sinister or even wrong about said agenda. The agenda is simply keeping the granularity of Wikipedia on certain subjects in line with the notability of said subjects.--Rosicrucian 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral, because article might establish notability if expanded along the lines suggested below. CWC(talk) 01:53, 14 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. -Splash - tk 23:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roundabout PlayPump

[edit]

Advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMHO the advertising argument is tenuous at best. This is actually quite a nifty idea. I think it works. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despammify, merge and Redirect to Roundabout Outdoors. BBC article and tie-in with South African government is enough for me but company rather than product is the way to go. Deizio talk 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What a fascinating idea! Looks like it has plenty of media attention too. Google News showsarticles from PBS, Forbes, Time, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But maybe the page should be PlayPumps and incorporate the business (Roundabout Outdoor) and the nonprofit that supports it (PlayPumps International), both of which have pages.
  • Keep Absolutely worth attention
  • Keep. A fascinating product. If coca-cola is allowed its own page, then a product as useful and life-saving as this should also be represented. The page could be made less focused on this one company.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastepunk

[edit]

No real evidence of notability according to WP:WEB. Contested prod. MER-C 03:16, 11 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 06:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of epic films

[edit]

Inherently POV: who determines what films are epic? Probably eligible for a category in the unlikely case it's good. Fork of Epic film; see that article's talk page. Morgan Wick 03:35, 11 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 06:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robinowitz

[edit]

Non notable webmaster of a conspiracy site. Not a single reliable source in the article. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Peephole 03:39, 11 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 CSD G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Keith Hernandez

Curse of Keith Hernandez

[edit]

Prod reason, in part: This is a major stretch for an article. It is not nationally known and all refs are from blogs. please delete or provide suitable citation or proof. Article creator has repeatedly removed prods without addressing their concerns or discussing - of course, numerous users (i.e., 4.18GB (talk · contribs)) have re-prodded as well. This has been deleted before but I don't know if it's similar enough for a db-repost. Morgan Wick 03:58, 11 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, pure advertising (G11). Deizio talk 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tmeet

[edit]

Advertisement, does not assert notability per WP:CORP. Melchoir 03:49, 11 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.


Martin Ryter

[edit]
The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Christison (CIA)

[edit]

Former CIA man turned conspiracy theorist, doesn't seem notable. Peephole 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And I thought the well was close to dry.--Tbeatty 05:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he's notable the article doesn't mention it. Banish this to Area 51 and Loch ness. Arbusto 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little online presence despite the controversial nature of 9/11 conspiracy nonsense [37], and nothing implying notability through reliable sources. As for his work for the CIA, doesn't appear to be enough to meet WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting the post below this one, he does indeed appear to go by Bill rather than William. However, I pretty carefully studied the first 60 of the 181 unique hits I found using this new Google search [38] which eliminates a few false positives and puts 9/11 into the search (hard to imagine many articles about this gentleman which wouldn't also have that term). I found nothing I would think of as a reliable source that implied notability. The only thing I did find was that he was an interviewee in a film (imdb profile) on the 9/11 conspiracies. I also searched a number of newspaper archives and found nothing but a mention of him as appearing in the foregoing film in the New York Times ([39]). Thus, I reaffirm deletion. Willing to review again if further sources are provided that would meet WP:BIO--Fuhghettaboutit 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take out 9/11 and put in CIA; this will also filter out the farm stuff. The guy is mentioned on the CIA's own site, he is quoted in an Ottawa newspaper; he is cited in Counterpunch, he is in a film that is reviewed by the New York Times. I realize he's not Donald Rumsfeld or something, but he's clearly notable.--csloat 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this meet WP:BIO? The only basis I can see that we can try to fit him in is: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. He's not the primary subject of the film, nor of counterpunch nor of anything else cited. What we find is a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy sources citing him, but when we get to reliable sources, we find almost nothing and what there is, is peripheral. I Simply don't think he meets the criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above google search is profoundly misleading. Try this one - same thing but use "Bill" instead of "William." 111,000 hits. I think some folks might want to reevaluate their votes. Sure, there are a lot of junk sites in the hits, but there are also plenty of notable sources including the CIA's own website.--csloat 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we furthur refine the search by eliminating results with the word "farm" to get rid of the family farm advocate with the same name that number comes down to 94,000 out of which 206 appear to be unique. See [40] GabrielF
I'm with you to 94,000 - can you demonstrate why 206 are "unique"? My "Bill Christison" + CIA search below gets 77,000 hits. Thanks.--csloat 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Search engine test.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This helps, yes, but it doesn't tell me how we got from 94k to 206.--csloat 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you click on page ten or so you'll see that Google omits search results after a certain number (last time I checked it was 206, now its 400-something) - if you display those results you'll see that there are pages and pages of counterpunch articles where Chrisiston is not mentioned but an article of his is linked to in the sidebar. For example if he published an article on January 1, every article after that will link to his until there are enough to push him off the sidebar. GabrielF 12:23, 13 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 06:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Evolution

[edit]

This article only covers a fan work largely divorced from the official Dragon Ball setting. While is it certainly a long-lived MUD, it does not belong in the category of Dragon Ball video games. It should be deleted or relocated to a page focused more on MUDs. Demota 04:11, 11 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 06:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSSA

[edit]

Contested prod. Three-year-old student club at a single university; no real claim of notability but if you want to know who their secretary was in 2004, here you go. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Entry Not all organizations need to be relevant to everyone. This is hardly a promotional vehicle for the organization as it does not mention how to join, or any upcoming events. It does what an encylopedia entry is supposed to do. INFORM.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unknownsoldier2 (talk • contribs) .

No it doesn't do what an encyclopedia entry is supposed to do, which is to function as a tertiary source which INFORMS by synthesizing secondary and primary reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:43, 12 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. -Splash - tk 23:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of confusion computation

[edit]

Idiosyncratic, incompatible, non-topic; impossible to work on. Dicklyon 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic, for sure. I'm not sure why this has a basis outside of the Circle of confusion article, and I would not know where to start if this material were to be integrated into that article. JeffConrad 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no evidence that this is anything but WP:OR, especially since the diagram was apparently made by the author of the article. --Hyperbole 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree this is original research -- these are well-established formulas from optics, assuming they are correct. And what's wrong with an author making a diagram to illustrate his article? That's a good thing not a bad thing. I also disagree the article is impossible to work on -- it looks to me like standard wiki math markup, easy enough for anyone famliar with Wikipedia math or physics pages to work on. The article is a bit arcane, but I can easily imagine situations where someone might turn to Wikipedia to find the math equations behind blurriness as they contemplate a photo setup of some kind. Agreeing with JeffConrad I don't think the article should be merged into the Circle of confusion because it would take up too much space proportionally if combined into that article. I think the article is basically OK as is. -- technopilgrim 22:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless someone can find a reference that does the derivation this awkwardly, or wants to fix it to agree with some reference; as it stands, it certainly appears to be "original". Dicklyon 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.Here's a similar form on David Jacobson's lens tutorial on photo.net. Is it the derivation you don't like or the final formula? -- technopilgrim 01:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacobson has several formulae with that factor. That's not the problem. The form and notation and presentation of the derivation here is tortured. It's even hard to follow and check to see if it's correct. It uses for the distance at which the camera is focused, which is an approach I don't recall seeing before, and B for the circle of confusion diameter, even though it claims to use modern notation. It omits steps when it claims not to. The article is just a pile of equations without clear explanation or relationships between them. The drawing is strange, unlike any I've seen in an optics text. It could all be fixed with enough effort, but why? Is there any value in having such an article? If the presentation is clear, and the result is in a usable form, and it's clear when the approximations are good, it might be. It would of course be best to have an answer without the approximations first, but if you read Jacobson you'll see that's unlikely, since one the paramter needed to make it exact, the pupil magnification, is not even included. And unless there's a reference showing such a method, it is be definition original research. I've tried to start on a rewrite; got a drawing made; but there's nothing I can do but throw out what's there and start over, and I just don't see the point of that much work to fix something that has no real purpose. Dicklyon 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information on any Wikimedia project. It could be Wikipedia or Wikibooks or another project. It's too much for the circle of confusion article but well worth keeping on Wikimedia. Fg2 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dicklyon. Michael K. Edwards 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the apparent idiosyncracy. If it were rewritten to make the context clearer and use standard terms, it could stay, but I still think it would be best for someone to who knows the subject to include at least the result in the main article. JPD (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into circle of confusion. I'm not enough of an expert to understand the technical details, but surely there is some sort of computation that goes into the subject; surely this could be elaborated in a section of the circle of confusion article at the least? Girolamo Savonarola 20:43, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Spider-Man titles

[edit]

Fancruft, listcruft. Wikipedia isn't the place for articles on lists of comics. A similar page like this was for Fantastic 4, and got deleted. Spider-Man is very popular, but simply doesn't need this. A link on the Spider-Man page can easily be the solution to this. RobJ1981 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, this is a list of titles, not a list of appearances, and is an index to sub-articles on the various titles and major storylines, some of which are quite significant; it contributes to the all-important out-of-universe perspective; it precludes the necessity of incorporating much of this information into the Spider-Man article. It is virtually impossible to explain that Spider-Man has had multiple simultaneous series in any other way. Only Batman, Superman, and the X-Men are comparable in that sense. (I'm slightly baffled as to why the FF page was deleted, though I assume it didn't have the sub-articles--which are really the key issue.) --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Bibliographies are certainly encyclopedic. They give those who are studying a topic a starting point for finding more information. This is too big to fit in the main article, and makes sense as an article on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per HK and Andrew. - Lex 09:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I believe the majority of this article is in fact a fine bibliography, the lower section "significant storylines" is not. Significant is inherently subjective for this sort of article and begs the title of listcruft as article creep from fans inevitably expands it. I'd say the article should be kept, but maintained only as a list of published works for reference, not fan opinion of what stories are good or not. -Markeer 12:13, 11 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 CSD A7 G11 - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HotelTravelCheck.com

[edit]

Advertisement, does not assert notability per WP:CORP. Melchoir 04:50, 11 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 12:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Baptist College

[edit]

An unaccredited "college". Fails notability. I get 558 yahoo hits for "Providence Baptist College," which includes wiki mirrors. Could be a diploma mill or could be a great school either way it lacks WP:V. This was proded for deletion in March, but was removed without comment.[41] Arbusto 00:48, 7 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, db-group, no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Force, Team 172

[edit]

One of at leat 70 teams in a New England robotics comp. No evidence of notability, delete --Peta 05:20, 11 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. Deizio talk 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Australian University Directors of Information Technology

[edit]

A group with no demonstrated relevance to an encyclopedia. Delete --Peta 05:23, 11 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.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Andrews

[edit]

The non-encyclopedic tone of this article, coupled with the meager 3 Google hits suggests to me that this nothing more than a vanity page about an NN individual (or individuals). If you feel I'm mistaken in this nomination, please notify me on my talk page. RFerreira 05:32, 11 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. -- Steel 12:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Radio Amateurs of Southern New England

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, this is now for the above listed club only. --Peta 06:53, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Chakar

[edit]

The article is about a non-notable (less than 10000 google hits) king containing unsourced information. James086 05:44, 11 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, db group / company, no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musiczine

[edit]

Short-lived Brazillian zine, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 05:59, 11 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 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Brown

[edit]

Little evidence provided as to how this guy meets WP:BIO, article is mostly an unsourced attack by an anti-cult organisation; delete --Peta 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Daniel5127 (Talk) 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks to me like someone had a go at him (with the controversy section being the main part of the first edit), then some of his followers must have looked him up and written good things about him. Either way, unsourced. HOWEVER 5 million google hits for Clint Brown and when I searched for clint brown without baseball (one of the top links) I got 16 million [48]. I think his recording company may be well known and he is mentioned on one of the related pages as the owner so it brings up lots of hits. I don't think we need an article on him however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James086 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 06:14:02
  • Delete. There are a lot of google hits, but there are a lot of Clint Browns, too (one of New Zealand's top sports broadcasters is a Clint Brown, for instance) so there's no guarantee that particularly many will be about the Clint Browqn listed here. This also seems to be mainly an attack page. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as an unsourced attack page. Incidentally, I get 77 Google hits (21 unique) for "Clint Brown " "Faithworld Center". ergot 15:51, 12 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 blatant spam. Note: My mention of recent copyvio in the deletion log is incorrect. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 11:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Tomo, LLC and Ocean Tomo 300 Patent Index

[edit]
plus redirects.

Adverts. -- RHaworth 06:00, 11 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 and cleanup. JPD (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric bicycle laws

[edit]

Extremely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of laws, which is essentially what this article is. Talking about the laws is fine for us. Literally publishing them is not. Woohookitty(meow) 06:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Essentially law-listcruft.
take note : The above unsigned vote is from the new user "NeoNitrde"[49] He only has 33 edits[50] which most of them where done voting for deletions on October 11th, the same time this article was nominated for deletion --CyclePat 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercilessly edit. Remove all extracts from statutes. The author has done a lot of work and is recommended to create a specific wiki on Wikia or http://editthis.info . -- RHaworth 06:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with RHaworth - cutting out the statutes and summarizing the highlights will be much more useful to a general audience. Lord Rasputin 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I knew this nomination was going happen! I Agree with RHworth, but we should not remove "ALL". I have done some pretty dandy work on the Ontario Laws. I know for a fact their are some good sources hidden in the laws that where essentially dumped here! I personnaly try to reference the laws with news articles. For example I have a news article laminated on my wall with the new laws and my picture. (I made 3rd page in the Ottawa Sun). So we should comb through the information and remove, probably, most of the laws that where essentially just dumped into here. However we should try to keep from losing these IMPORTANT references; which unfortunatelly wasn't properly cited. (One reason I've been a little despaired) I'm actually debating if this is a bad faith nomination to only incite someone to clean up the article in a hurry. If so, I think that is bad. --CyclePat 01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it is not a bad faith nomination. It's a terrible, terrible, terrible Wikipedia article. As I've stated to you and others in the past, the articles on here need to be ABOUT the laws, not the actual laws themselves. Our general practice is to talk about a law and then provide a link to the full text of the law at the bottom of the page. It's not to include extensive extracts of the law itself. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, maybe merge badly written articles are not a reason for deletion. It needs help from a good editor and expert, but articles on classes of laws are fairly notable. Perhaps a merge into a large article on Transportation Laws might be better, but its got potential... --Jayron32 06:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have an electric bicycle article. The laws article was essentially a fork from the electric bicycle article. It could be merged into that article...remerged. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • NO! absolutely not. This shouldn't be merged. Electric Bicycle laws is a large section of electric bicycles wich ironically is a subdivision of "motorized bicycles." As you may have noticed "Electric bicycle laws" article is big. It would be illogical at this point to try and merge all this information into electric bicycles (which is huge as is). I was actually thinking we could split the US, Canada and other countries to have their own article. Frankly I don't appreciate having this discussion here. I can see what you are trying to do. I appreciate the fact that this article needs to be cleaned but deleting sourced information is totally contrary to keeping a well balanced WP:POV article. (Essential NPOV) Please do not merge or delete. This article only needs a good cleaning. If you have the time please take a look at this youtube video we just uploaded in regards to the laws in Ontario. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U54U3i_dK0U --CyclePat 17:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, I would like to add that doing a quick search on google give approx. 47000 hits for "electric bicycle" law.[51] --CyclePat 23:10, 12 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. The Session Initiation Protocol is probably really the place for this, however. It does appear that the word "forum" in the article has confused at least one of the deleters (DesertSky). -Splash - tk 23:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIP Forum

[edit]

No evidence is provided to suggest that this group warrants and encyclopedia article, delete --Peta 06:34, 11 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 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDigital Edition

[edit]

Seems like a commercial plug, and nothing else. JereKrischel 06:44, 11 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 CSD A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Mobile Amateur Radio Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete--Peta 06:48, 11 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmetto Amateur Radio Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Also, this is of concern: "Our main purpose is to encourage innovation in amateur radio, provide public service and educational opportunities, foster good will within our community, and have fun in the process.". So tagged. MER-C 08:11, 11 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 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Radio Association

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, South Jersey Radio Association claims it was the first club in the US; delete. --Peta 06:52, 11 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Tammany Amateur Radio Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:52, 11 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 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IcePhantomon

[edit]

Hoax article. Said digimon does not exist. Google search comes up with absolutely nothing. A reliable source for digimon information, the shining evolution encyclopdia doesn't have this digimon. There are also no versions of Phantomon that have IcePhantomon has an english alternative name. Digimon also does not exist on this list.

The image used on the article is apparently self-made by User:Pjpatron. Which seems sort of suspicious. Suspicious as in either the person's lying about the image license, or the image is self-made, along with the digimon. `/aksha 06:53, 11 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. Kusma (討論) 09:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Clipper Contest Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:54, 11 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 CSD A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UBC Amateur Radio Society

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:55, 11 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 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Park Amateur Radio Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:55, 11 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, Coredesat 21:08, 17 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman County ARES

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:58, 11 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 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shohola Amateur Radio Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:58, 11 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, Coredesat 21:09, 17 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Amateur Radio Society

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:58, 11 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martlesham Radio Society

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:58, 11 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 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Megacycle Club

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable clubs, delete --Peta 06:58, 11 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 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCW King of Cable Tournament and WCW Jesse "The Body" Ventura Strongest Arm Tournament

[edit]

nn pro wrestling tournament, gets 74 google hits [52] Tony fanta 07:25, 11 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, Coredesat 21:11, 17 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 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namasté: Indian Salutation

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This term is already covered at Wiktionary wikt:namaste, so no need to transwiki. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:46, 11 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. --Coredesat 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftain Products

[edit]

Defunct Canadian game company that fails WP:CORP. (The notability of the distributed products (eg Scrabble) should not be conflated with the notability of the actual company. Eusebeus 23:58, 10 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 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YHA Saltburn

[edit]

Contested WP:PROD for a closed youth hostel. Might belong if referenced and some evidence of notability given. Abstain. Kusma (討論) 09:03, 11 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 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peach martini

[edit]

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, WP:V no references for any claims in article. Contested prod. MER-C 09:10, 11 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, natch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz Communications

[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. From discussion page appears to contribute some services to Wikipedia Foundation, but no assertion of notability in this regard and given we have been deleting articles on Foundation board members I doubt that is enough reason to have this article. I prodded it, anon removed prod with cryptic comment. Text reads like a standard corporate PR blurb of the sort there is emerging consensus Wikipedia is frowning on. Martinp 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making clear I vote Delete. Martinp 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. A non-notable blurby stubb. Exactly the sort of thing this foundation memo wants executed on sight. The Pedia will be no poorer for its removal.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medium-Strength, Slightly Tangy Delete. Why? Because I read http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=A_Commercial_Failure and am all too happy to see Wikipedia's nepotism hoisted by its own lawyer-issued petard.--Perceive 10:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the link, seems rather yelly and uncompelling to me, like most stuff on that site. Let's judge Schwartz Communications on its own merits as an article. I don't see any evidence of nepotism, just an article which as we scale up and our policies on certain things evolve and formalize, is now clearly nonencyclopedic. Incidentally, thanks to User:Uncle G for attempting to improve the article since my nomination, but it doesn't change my vote -- I feel the "controversy" dug up and added is itself quite nonnotable (the sort of thing which is unsurprising for any PR firm) and does not make the article subject notable. Martinp 11:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphan article for a PR firm, does not meet WP:CORP. Catchpole 09:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Jimbo Wales called the original article about Arch Coal "corporate fluff" and a "travesty of NPOV", then surely this article needs to be deleted on grounds of non-notability, fluffy spam, and principle. --BeigeBoy 12:42, 14 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 (done speedily). —Centrx→talk • 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Amber Army

[edit]

This is just a generic description of a particular football team's supporters. Most clubs' fans identify themselves as The (insert team colours) Army and this article says nothing of note about Hull's fans in particular ChrisTheDude 09:38, 11 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 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Century Wireless Association

[edit]

Organization of no demonstrated notability, delete --Peta 09:44, 11 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. Added to AOL: [53]. -Splash - tk 23:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iAmaze

[edit]

Previously, I deleted this as an uncontested {{prod}}, but I got a complaint about it on my talk page, so I'm listing it on AFD. I do not believe this is worth keeping. —freak(talk) 16:30, Oct. 3, 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:17, 11 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 for lack of compliance with WP:V. Nobody seems to formulate a solid opinion as to whether verification could somehow be obtained, so if it ever is, this AfD should not be used as a basis for a G4 deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Datta Maharaj Kavishwar

[edit]

Unsourced, and "0" google hits. possible hoax. Delete. Stubbleboy 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, I went through the criteria and found this article ineligible. I change my vote to a neutral comment until some one can find a better reference. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbleboy, WikiProject Deletion sorting is a accepted guideline. The merits and de-merits of de-centralizing deletion should be discussed elsewhere. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:53, 5 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, MER-C 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable. I can't find any sources to confirm any of the details (although I accept that Google will not be the best source for searching for information in this case), he is not mentioned in any of the connecting articles, and the creator has not provided any references. Yomanganitalk 12:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unless sufficient sources can be provided (and if he's "considered by many to be the great guru..." it shouldn't be this difficult to find some), then the article's got to go. SkerHawx 03:18, 16 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 evidence provided for claims made in the article, thus fails WP:V - Yomanganitalk 10:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Firehawk

[edit]

A contested prod. Original rationale for deletion was "Recommending deletion. Possible attack page.". Prod removed with rationale "he deserves and article, he is an important piece of wrestling history, long live billy whatshisname". Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable wrestling promoter. If the article is weak as it stands, we shouldn't have rely on the hope that folks at some Wikiproject will fix it up. For a good article on wrestling, see the one on Ron Killings. This Billy Firehawk article is only three sentences, and the last of them is an unsupported speculation that could be defamatory (but we're not sure). Delete. EdJohnston 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply Well, I'm not really much of a wrestling fan, but the fact that the article is poorly written does NOT automatically make the subject not notable. It makes the article a stub that needs expansion, but for all I know, the subject MAY be notable. The subject of professional wrestling is notable, so widely-known participants thereof are by extension notable. That's why I suggested bringing it to the attention of the WikiProject. If the subject is not-notable, someone there can let us know. --Jayron32 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. More importantly, article provides no sources whatsoever, much less credible, third-party ones as required by WP:V. A quick Google search turned up only 145 unique GHits, almost all blogs and Wiki-mirrors. His real name appears to be William Hawkins, and, on a sad note, it looks as though he may have passed away several months ago, although I was not able to find a reliable source to confirm that. --Satori Son 01:57, 10 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, MER-C 10:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable wrestling promoter, also has notability from Lex Luger viral video. Cornerbock 12:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I actually spent some time and effort on this one, and I was unable to find any "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have found some, please cite here or in the article and I will be the first to admit my mistake and change my opinion. Otherwise, asserted notability cannot be confirmed and the article should be deleted. Thanks, Satori Son 13:52, 12 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 g11, spam. NawlinWiki 13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormwave

[edit]

Was tagged as possibly non-notable 30 August. Nothing added since to suggest otherwise. Was created by the company's owner - clearly a vanity piece. Company and article both created last year, so unlikely to have achieved much in the meantime. Delete as non-notable vanity. Emeraude 10:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Company is a new started up private limited company [1]. Main office seems to be the owner's private home. Couple of Ghits for customers of Stormwave come back with holding pages and no active sites. QuiteUnusual 12:57, 11 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 Patch Tuesday. --Coredesat 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploit Wednesday

[edit]
  • Seems reasonable to leave this one. The phrase is used openly in among Windows security admins. The article does incorrectly cite the source of the phrase though -- deleted that.

Neologism... apparenly it's a recently-coined term to describe the day after Patch Tuesday, referring to the day of the month that Microsoft releases most of its security updates. About 1500 google hits, mostly blogs and forum postings... -/- Warren 11:05, 11 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 CSD A7. -- Merope Talk 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Furrow

[edit]

Not very notable. Stub Kristod 11:05, 11 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 Choc ice. This should've been closed when the nomination was withdrawn, but it would have been redirected anyway. --Coredesat 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choc Ice

[edit]

This is just a recipe, which belongs on the Wikibooks cookbook. Though there is precedent for some ice cream recipe articles such as Ice cream sandwich or Baked Alaska this doesn't look as it it could ever expand into an encyclopædia entry. Transwiki Tonywalton  | Talk 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I'd missed the Choc ice article to which a redirect is most appropriate. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could someone close this, please, and I'll redir as discussed. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:30, 11 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 spam. El_C 08:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic retreat

[edit]

WP:NOT a travel agency. No claim to importance, no sources (ProD removed three weeks ago, but no improvements since). If not under WP:NOT, then it still fails WP:CORP Fram 11:39, 11 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 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Forums

[edit]
Previous deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft Forums

It's merely a forum. What value does it have in an encyclopedia? Hundreds of games have forums. The entry is a painful definition of a standard forum with added Warcraft. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - I don't see an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this is poorly written, a quick skim of the article and a click or two of the links reveals that thhis is indeed the official forum maintained by Blizzard!!! As soon as I finish this, I will edit the page in question to establish notability --Roninbk t c e # 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've always considered internet forums as a whole non-notable unless they have a very specific reason to be notable. For example, SomethingAwful is notable, as are 4chan and 2chan. MMORPG official forums are generally not notable enough to have their existance described in an article--if anything, they should have a section in the main game's article, or not at all. I play EVE Online, and our forum has over a hundred thousand active members and over 3.5 million posts, but even I don't think it deserves its own article, or even a section in the main article. There's nothing encyclopedic about your average internet game forum. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've played both WoW and City of Heroes, and compared to the CoH official forums, the WoW forums are quite unhelpful and vexatious. This has nothing to do with their notability, of course. But it isn't really surprising or informative to learn that WoW, like most other major MMORPGs, has an official forum. A link to the forums in the main World of Warcraft article seems enough. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable about this forum. Being the official forum for a notable game does not convey notability. MLA 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into the main WoW article. Every online game has/had at least one forum, and there's usually not much that can be said about them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments, plus: no external sources for any claim to notability. Sandstein 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the article appears to be pretty well organized and written, as above it has no external, independent references cited. The information is probably accurate, but there are no references of independent sources actually talking about these forums, such as a reliable news article or established gaming reviewer talking about the forums, how they're structured, and what makes them actually interesting and different from similar forums. In other words, the article is probably almost entirely original research about a set of forums that isn't really different from official forums for other popular games. Unless there is something that makes these forums stand out, and there are independent sources to verify it, the article should be deleted. Dugwiki 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki and nom. Wickethewok 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mention of the forums existance on the World of Warcraft article is more than enough. Resolute 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WoW article. Not notable on its own. --- RockMFR 04:48, 16 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 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titular county

[edit]

Procedural nom b/c reprodded. See lengthy rationale for deletion on article talk. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:56, 11 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 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality continuum

[edit]

It appears to be nonsense Todd661 12:33, 11 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 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pandimensional sub-quantum topography

[edit]

The text of the article just gives the title in simpler words. Nothing comes up on Google for the title apart from the article and its' mirrors. Mike Peel 12:46, 11 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 06:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metaevolution

[edit]

Seems to be an advert for a non-notable book (see external link). Mike Peel 12:50, 11 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 as website with no assertion of notability (CSD A7). -- Merope Talk 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yang (manga)

[edit]

Non notable webcomic. No google hits outside Wiki and homesite (DeviantArt).Fails WP:V, WP:NOT Fram 13:29, 11 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 07:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Crane

[edit]

Speculation on a non-notable soap-opera character that has never been seen. yandman 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, from what I gather from the article, there is apparently an in character reason that the character has yet to be seen. If this is a currently developing storyline, I'd prefer to give it a couple weeks to see how it plays out, maybe tag it with {{In-progress tvshow}}. Seems like a gray area of crystalballery to me. --Roninbk t c e # 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a mention in a recent soap opera digest that the show is looking to cast a new character named Susan who appears to fit the description of the Julian & Ivy's unknown daughter (smart, 20's, blonde, world travelled etc). The deletion should probably wait to see if this character is indeed the unnamed daughter and then merge or delete at that time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.169.77 (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 21:33, 17 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 Duja (CSD G11, made by WP:SPA, spam) - Yomanganitalk 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling Viewer

[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Probably not a noticable product (Google results 285 for "feeling viewer".) Made by a single-purpose (Contribs user Claforte) account. Delta Tango | Talk 14:02, 11 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 at request of creator (see below). But I bet googiality now gets results on Google :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googiality

[edit]

Neologism, zero Google hits, article admits the term was made up today. Deprodded. Hate to even bring this here, but there's no WP:CSD that fits. Accurizer 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got it guy's "must first appear in a published, reputable, verifiable source" I will make sure it happens ,can i delete the article myself so that at least i do not fell like i vandalized or something..Thanks for feed back good work ..keep it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jynn (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Alex (Talk) 16:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes (video)

[edit]

"Popular" video on YouTube, however can find no claims to verify this. Prod removed by author with no reason, bringing to AfD by procedure. Wildthing61476 14:37, 11 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 Lots of possible sockpuppets and possible trolling. The argument for deletion is really much stronger and the arguments for closure fail to look at the links and see the mentions which don't exist. The product is mentioned on the main corp's page, which is where it belongs for now. Yanksox 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Yellow Pages

[edit]

'+"Nigerian Yellow Pages"' googles only about 6000 hits, of which I can't find a sensible reference near the top, and I've not found that the company meets WP:CORP (not the primary subject of non-trivial publication, not listed on an important ranking index, value not used in a stock market index). The only reliable references provided appear to me closely affiliated with the company, and certainly not independent, nor separately noteworthy. Many of its incarnations (including its current state at time of nomination) read like an SEO inbound links generator. I bring it here simply to find out whether others agree that it could be deleted. RobertG ♬ talk 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the debate has been going a while now, and the four people who have voted keep (only one of whom has a history of Wikipedia experience), while obviously feeling strongly about it, have not provided one single piece of evidence for why the Nigerian Yellow Pages qualifies as a notable company per WP:CORP. In fact, on further investigation, I think this article nearly qualifies under CSD G11. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be unnotable to Americans, but keep in mind that the official language of Nigeria is English. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're making an unwarranted assumption, that has no basis in what the nominator actually wrote, which is that xe was unable to find any sources. Ironically, the fact that the official language is English rather undermines any "You didn't find any sources because you weren't looking in the right language." argument. You can help the discussion by pointing to articles that others have written about this business directory. Uncle G 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, nominator is not American :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It occurs to me to ask, does WP:CORP then not apply to non-American companies? --RobertG ♬ talk 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a thought, I could be wrong though. Will African ever develop? When a reference was quoted an no one care to investigate that...only to just assume(MAY BE) and based action on such. Africa and Western world are different, and if there is such references with pages and newspaper's names, I feel strong that its worth keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 21:02
    • Comment I agree with you (above). Only Africa and Africans suffer sometimes. The article on Europages was and have never been nominated for deletion...that is one of the irony. even when references are cited, no investigation made to establish facts. I have always like Wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 22:12
      Thank you for agreeing with yourself, 196.3.61.3. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      That is very pitiful of a remark from RoberG. How can you assume that the same person posted the two comment just becos they have same IP adrress. Lack of knowledge may have allowed you to utter such. Remember African's depend on ISP who most times has just one single IP address as shared by all who subscribed to their internet facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 11:52
      I really am sorry if it offended you. You could always create yourself a separate account. If you say so, of course I accept that the two comments were not by the same person, and withdraw the remark. Others will no doubt look at the history of contributions from your IP address and draw their own conclusions. I notice that you still provide no argument for why Nigerian Yellow Pages is notable per WP:CORP (because it isn't). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be modified, remember it is a good source of information for foreigners seeking Nigerian business information - Dave Wellington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 15:38:54
  • Good to Keep Only need some fine-tunning, it could be a good source of information for us outside Nigeria--User:TylerOH 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you appear to be conflating the business directory itself with the Wikipedia article about the business directory. This discussion is about whether Wikipedia should have an article. It is nothing to do with whether actual business directory itself should exist. Uncle G 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TylerOH's first contribution on Wikipedia: you are very welcome indeed, I hope you stay. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, we don't need to worry that foreigners seeking Nigerian business information will go uninformed: the company's website is equally accessible outside Nigeria. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My findings I just did some findings, and observed the company link on one of the mobile networks wapsite in Nigeria at http://wap.ng.celtel.com/infoservices/index.aspx - Dave Wellington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 16:01:53
    • A bare hyperlink on a web page, with no accompanying text whatsoever, doesn't do anything towards satisfying the WP:CORP criteria. Please find non-trivial published works that other people, independent of the business directory and its operators, have written about it. (Take a look at BETDAQ#References, for comparison.) Uncle G 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Celtel.com is a portal for mobile content service providers, not exactly a reliable independent source. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment,Uncle G: On the company website...there are independent source references to nine (9) nigerian noteable national and business newspapers extract about the company, quoting what the newspapers said of this company. Is this not an independent sources? This is available at http://nigerianyellowpages.com/press.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) .
      • No, these are newspaper cuttings, which may be excerpts from press releases, quoted on the company's website, not references in sources that are primarily about the company. Please read WP:CORP. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Comment Robert, I like pursuing what is good. Someone mentioned the references MAY BE cutting or press releases. We fight for what we can establish as facts, it is my suggestion that we should not assume and based action on assumptions. It will be proper to get copy of this materials to establish if they are press releases indeed, otherwise it will be injustice to act this way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs)
      • You'd do far better to point to the original articles directly. Are the Sun and the Guardian mentioned The Sun and The Guardian? Both of those have their archives available on the World Wide Web. Uncle G 16:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, Please note that the reference newspapers are Nigerian newspapers. They do not keep all their content online ony few headlines article are available as online content. The reference materials as indicated can be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriwedd (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 16:54:28
          • Ah. The Guardian. Uncle G 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm a Nigerian myself, and I can confirm the references someone made on the chat in the referece newspapers. I do not see why that cannot be considered just becos the material reference are not available as a link on the web. Not all countries are techie like American. A second investigation will do justice to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 20:52
            Yes, please read the nomination, and provide evidence for why the Nigerian Yellow Pages is notable. As I say, the facts about Nigerian Yellow Pages are not in dispute. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's Keep Deletion will mean a harm to many in need of information of such importance provided through this company at this information age, when people outside nigeria truly need business information about Nigeria easily.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriwedd (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 16:16
    • Comment, we don't need to worry that foreigners seeking Nigerian business information will go uninformed: the company's website is equally accessible outside Nigeria. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are very welcome to Wikipedia, Afriwedd. Your comment is valued here, because I notice that in your few contributions you have taken a special interest in the Xybertek, and the Nigerian Yellow Pages articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about all contributions to this debate so far. The arguments made for keeping the article have nearly all been based on its being verifiable, which is not in dispute. That Nigerian Yellow Pages is a Nigerian business directory with an internet presence is not questioned. The nomination of the article for deletion is based purely on my opinion that the company's meeting WP:CORP cannot be established, and that it is therefore not according to Wikipedia policy that the article be kept. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I'm a Nigerian myself, and I can confirm the references someone made on the chat in the referece newspapers. I do not see why that cannot be considered just becos the material reference are not available as a link on the web. Not all countries are techie like American. A second investigation will do justice to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 20:57
      Yes, please read the nomination, and provide evidence for why the Nigerian Yellow Pages is notable. As I say, the facts about Nigerian Yellow Pages are not in dispute. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate so far. Nominator (me): delete because I cannot determine it meets WP:CORP. Jusjih: Delete. Kitch: WP:CORP doesn't apply to non-American companies. 134.146.0.27: it's a useful source of info for those seeking Nigerian businsess information, besides there are references: look at the company's own website and this Nigerian mobile-content-providers' commercial portal. TylerOH: it's useful for people outside Nigeria. Afriwedd: will deprive many needing this important information. 196.3.61.3: Keep because it's been mentioned in a newspaper. Nominator's reply to all the comments so far: (sigh) please read the nomination, and stop distracting us from the issue. It is not in dispute that Nigerian Yellow Pages is a Nigerian commercial business directory with an internet presence. What is required in this debate is verifiable evidence that the company is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory, an SEO tool, or an internet guide (I quote from What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website [or company] offers, but should describe the site [or company] in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance). The debate so far has convinced me more than ever that my original nomination was correct. In fact, on further investigation, I think it nearly qualifies for {{db-spam}} and CSD G11. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! I've been with Wikipedia for over a year now and contribute primarily to Nigeria-related articles (also occasional XfD discussions). I normally feel very strongly about keeping Nigeria-related articles that show up here, mostly because we really do suffer from a lack of them. However, I think that this article should be deleted for several reasons, not the least of which is that this site has been axed by its host and no longer exists. Beyond that, the site itself (not the Wikipedia article) has always been very spammy and not particularly useful. If people want to write more articles about Nigeria, that's wonderful, but this isn't a good place to start. We have very few Nollywood-related articles, Nigerian popular music is brutally underrepresented, and our articles on Nigerian politicians are frequently out of date and no longer accurate. But I can't see what this or any article on nigerianyellowpages.com (or even yellowpages.com.ng which isn't a lot better) could possible add to the encyclopedia that would be of value. ergot 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I cannot see the site being axe. I can sense some Wikipedian being a competitor to NigerianYellowPages.com especially the last commentator mentioning a competiting yellowpages called http://yellowpages.com.ng . This now gives me a clue to what people type here.....you guys all the very best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 8:39
  • I actually expected Ergot to confirm some comment regarding online content of Nigerian newspapers and whether the cites references are truly news event since he has been writing on Nigerian article, he should have provided some insight rather than offering a competiting yellow pages site.....something is hidden here. truly Afriwedd 08:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Afriwedd, please assume good faith. If people are looking for a hidden agenda, they might equally imagine that some people who have contributed to this discussion have a commercial interest in keeping the Wikipedia article as an additional free high-profile web presence for the company, and for SEO purposes. Of course, I couldn't possibly believe such a thing myself: I am merely pointing out to you where your argument of "something hidden", taken to its logical conclusion, leads. Let's assume that no-one has an axe to grind. My reading of Ergot's argument is that he disinterestedly believes the company is not notable, and that the article adds nothing to Wikipedia. I say to you again, please read the nomination: the problem with the article is not that it is unverifiable, the problem is that it is not verifiably notable per WP:CORP. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The site does seem to be back up today, although yesterday the URL only returned a "this site has been suspended" notice. I just wanted to mention that by no means was I trying to promote yellowpages.com.ng. I said that nigerianyellowpages.com was a spammy site and that yellowpages.com.ng wasn't a lot better. If anything, I attacked yellowpages.com.ng rather than attempting to promote it. I don't think we need articles on either of them. ergot 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our attention has been drawn to this debate, and would like to clarifies as follows:
    First, we feel priviledge that someone has written an article about us and several others have been updating same with information about our service and company.
    We appreciate those who were steadfast in defending an article about us, and also appreciate the other side of this story. This actually help to establish fast but we only decided to comment based on what could negatively impact on our company which we would like to correct at this forum.
    RobertG comment that "these are newspaper cuttings". We will please implore you to do your investigation and correct same in this forum after establishing that these are news event of which were published by the newspapers extract and cited by someone in the aforesaid article.
    We also want to mention that we appreciate competition thus would encourage anyone (like the person with yellowpages.com.ng) to freely mention them, and would encourage free and unbiased comments.
    While it is our desire to publish material about us, we would not want a sitation where such remarks and comments impact on us negatively.
    We wish you all to enjoy your contributions to Wikipedia and make it an avenue for all to benefit from. NigerianYellowPages 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Email: ads@NigerianYellowPages.com Web: www.NigerianYellowPages.com[reply]
    (Apologies, this may not be well formatted, due to the fact that we are not familair with Wikipedia)
    To be clear, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that the newspaper cuttings quoted are genuine, and I am sorry if I have given any other impression. I reiterate a point that I have made here frequently: there is no doubt that Nigerian Yellow Pages is a Nigerian company offering a business directory of considerable utility, with an internet presence. If the thoughtful and balanced comment above is anything to go by, the company is clearly a good one to do business with. I wish the company every success. I am purely asking the Wikipedia community whether the subject of the article meets the notability criteria, which are clearly laid out at WP:CORP.
    I would be distressed if this discussion reflected badly on your business. That is the very last thing I want. Since you have raised this as a concern, I propose that this discussion be blanked shortly after the debate is over (which will be in about a week's time). I will do so myself if no-one objects. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Great contribution from NigerianYellowPages. I also wish your company the very best. I need to draw attention of all to the comment made by someone from IP address - 196.3.61.3 - i.e. The article on Europages was and have never been nominated for deletion. No one seem to make any comment on this reference. Does that same article meet same criteria, that it has not been nominated for deletion? Just a thought after reading all the trends. TylerOH 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I looked at the article and I agree with you: I nominated it for deletion as you suggested. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the article on Europages was nominated for deletion, and that was removed, and Nigerian Yellow Pages still suggested for deletion. I've raised this before, that we do not have a balanced judgement here.....since I've been using Wikipedia, Europages has never been up for deletion, only when someone raised the issue, then people thought of it for deletion. Again...numbers of people who are here day-in day-out with their comments, never mentioned of Europages as not in line with Wikipedia policy, but bent on making several comments on Nigerian Yellow Pages. I've been condemed for my remark before now.....and my very reason of not becoming a member...becos I do not like unbiased comments. With or without this article, someone already suggested we westerners will not be deprived of information we need, but I can assume we can get it from Europages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) 15 October 2006 17:16
    Firstly, Europages is going through the AfD process, the same as this one. And, bless you, deletion of the Wikipedia article would not deprive westerners of any information, because there is no information in the article that is not on Nigerian Yellow Pages! Are you confusing "Wikipedia" with "the internet"? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Abeg my pardon RobertG. If Europages is going through same, why do the deletion sign appeared on NigerianYellowPages and not on Europages anymore? We need balanced judgment here. I could be wrong though, but I remember seeing the deletion sign on Europages but not anymore, and I can hear RoberG mentioning that Europages is going through the AfD process, what is the meaning of this comment? TylerOH 09:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    EUROPAGES was a contested {{prod}}, and is now undergoing an AfD discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Abeg brodas please note EUROPAGES has now been deleted (discussion). FWIW. ergot 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable printed directory.--Vsion 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep qualifies under WP:CORP 'Criteria for products and services' #1 : 'The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.' The list of newspaper references at the bottom constitutes 'multiple non-trivial published works...' unless and until someone reads the newspapers in question and can show us that the coverage was in fact trivial. Cynical 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of these newspapers have websites with online archives. I don't have time to go through all the refs right now, but I did pull up the first one, which is given as "ThisDay Newspaper, Page 26. November 3, 2005". Here is ThisDay from November 3, 2005. I didn't read all the articles, but NigerianYellowPages is certainly not mentioned in any of the headlines, nor do any of the articles have headlines that suggest that they might be about this website. I doubt that any coverage therein would be nontrivial, but I would appreciate it if someone with more time than I have could take a look. Additionally, that "AboutUs.org featured site" link is pointing at someone's wiki, which would almost certainly not be considered a reliable source. ergot 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aboutus featuring NigerianYellowPages.com among the many millions of site could have been a good credit and recognition of the work done by this company. At least, NigerianYellowPages.com do not owned or control the decision for its site to be featured. What interest me to comment is what I found on the wiki site at http://www.aboutus.org/NigerianYellowPages.com i.e The place to go if you're looking for a business in Nigeria.
  • Keep.There is considerable evidence that is should be kept. Someone in this trend mentioned being a Nigerian, and that he saw the newspapers articles. I need to ask where Egot comes from if he is knowledgable about Nigeria society itself. I can also confirm that not all article in a day (eidtion) newspaper are made available on the web. The major headlines are posted, and that very newspaper has hundreds of other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.6.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Reply. I really fail to see how this is relevant, but I am from Aba, Abia State. ergot 21:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply.It is a pity such words came from you. How on earth would someone see a yellow pages with considerable innovation and progress as irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, how come Celtel that just came into the country recognised the need to put their link on its website so that all Nigerians can have access to business directory at their finger tips? How again would Yell UK put lots of resources achieving same for UK and the world. It is becoming so clear how your argument is. I can see that Ergot is definitely a competitor. If you are a competitor (which I already assumed) I would prefer you come out with what your yellow pages can do to improve the life of Nigerian than to come here and make unjustified comment as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Were I a competitor, I probably would have created an article on whatever competing entity I am supposed to represent by now. Please read the other comments on this page about assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks, and the like. I think that Wikipedia needs more articles on Nigeria-related subjects, but I don't think that this article is one that can be included under our guidelines. I have said that several times now. Please stop making these bizarre accusations against me. ergot 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article definitely qualifies, in my opinion. With my short time on wikipedia, I've seen lots of articles with only references to books e.tc whose presence are not web-based. e.g Nigeria. If those references are doubted, people would have commented on them, same with Nigerian Yellow Pages - becos many Nigerians themselves would have raise a comment. Only Egot who is familiar with Nigeria articles, but making a reference to another competitor without any need for it - which makes someone thought of him being the competitor itself. Let us not be biased in making judgement. TylerOH 16:21, 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 no consensus. --Coredesat 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Smallman

[edit]

Running for office on behalf of a ward in municipal elections doesn't meet WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Leadman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Ludington. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable unless she wins (and maybe not even then). NawlinWiki 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:C&E. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If anything all candidates for upcoming elections should have entries where possible for use by voters. Just because they're highly localized entries, does not mean they aren't meaningful to a portion of Wikidepia's readership. This is especially true for the Ottawa Election as of Oct 11th, now that the financing on O-Train is dependent on ratification by the soon-to-be-newly elected council. Removal of non-winning candidates can be scheduled for after the election.Besides, I find it odd that only candidates for this highly contested ward are being marked for deletion so close to the election date. At least be consistent.user:Dogboots --
Comment: The Ottawa Citizen just ran a remakably lengthy bio on Ms. Smallman [54] (subscription required) on Saturday October 14th, focusing on her fairly unique combination of first time candidacy with first time parenthood. Would that satisfy the WP:BIO? To be clear, I'd rather all the candidatates in this ward (and others) keep their enties, not just Smallmanuser:Dogboots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.123.58 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 October 2006

Other Ottawa non-incumbent candidate entries - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Biocchi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Haydon Toronto non-incumbent candidate entries - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Perruzza - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gord_Perks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dominelli - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Kennedy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Vaughan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sewell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Newman_%28politician%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Parker_%28Canadian_politician%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thomas_%28Canadian_politician%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Sandor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ainslie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarjeet_Chhabra

Comment: I've looked through them (by the way, you can link to articles using [[article name]]). Many of them are notable for reasons other than these current elections -- for example, several held other elected positions, such as Mayor, Councillor, or LAO member, one was an olympic athlete, and so on. (In fact, some of the articles don't mention these current elections at all.) The others, I'm sure, will shortly be nominated for deletion now that they have been conveniently listed. They don't affect this discussion. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biocchi is a former Olympic athlete. Haydon is a former mayor. Perruzza and Parker are former MPPs. Perks is notable as an environmentalist. Dominelli, Kennedy and Sewell are former city councillors attempting a return to council; that they're not current incumbents doesn't make them non-notable. Vaughan is a notable television journalist. Newman is a former provincial party leader. And Ainslie is an incumbent; that he was appointed to replace another councillor rather than being elected in 2003 does not make him any less an incumbent. And Thomas has stood as a major party candidate in a federal election — the notability of federal election candidates is a bit contested on Wikipedia, but the absolute minimum he's entitled to per Wikipedia precedent is to be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Which leaves only Sandor and Chhabra as valid comparisons to the matter at hand, and either one of them is a perfectly valid AFD candidate as soon as somebody actually nominates them. Bearcat 04:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Kitchissipi is one of the most watched wards in the upcoming Ottawa elections. At least three of the candidates have wiki pages, the pages are relevant and don't read like vanity. --ottawan
  • Despite my smackdown of the "she's just as notable as John Sewell" argument above, I'm actually indecisive about this; she is at least moderately well-known in political circles, particularly through her former prominence in the Canadian Federation of Students. I knew who she was a decade ago, and I'm not all that well-connected politically. Whether she's notable enough for Wikipedia at this point, I'm not sure, but she does have some notability. And, for that matter, the election is exactly one month away — since they're in a ward whose incumbent did not stand for reelection, Smallman or one of the other two Kitchissippi candidates currently under AFD will be entitled to come back in just a few weeks. (The AFD machine has already taken on bios of Ottawa city councillors and determined that Ottawa is one of those cities large and notable enough that its municipal council can be considered notable; the precedent on AFD isn't that municipal politicians are never notable, but that it depends on variables like the size of the city.) So all in all, she's near my personal dividing line; I'm just not sure which side of it she's on. Bearcat 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like all otherwise nn Election candidates. The article makes no claim to notability besides being a regional chair of CFS and running in this election. There are thousands of candidates in the upcoming Ontario municipal elections, none should have articles unless otherwise notable for something else. Fails WP:BIO -- Chabuk 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree completely with Bearcat. She's on the cusp of notability. I had heard of her from the summer of 2005 when I was talking with some people about the municipal election. Apparently she is pretty famous among local New Democrats. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:46, 17 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 JPD (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Do Kwan

[edit]

Possibly false? And even if it isnt false, this article doesnt belong in wikipedia anywaysSkynet1216 03:59, 11 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. Please note that merging requires keeping the article in some form and 'merge and delete' opinions are self-contradictory. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) While there is no consensus in this discussion, this is an article on a company with no assertion of notability, so the result is speedy delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Computer Security Association

[edit]

Uncategorised, later nominated CSD#A3 by User:JonHarder - not sure of importance, so ask here. -Ricksy 05:54, 11 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 deletion request withdrawn following cleanup. Haukur 15:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul du Toit

[edit]

Article does not, in my opinion, assert notability and I have been unable to establish notability with web searches - there seem to be several people with this name. I tagged the page for speedy deletion and a patrolling admin changed to prod. An IP-editor removed the prod tag and here we are. Haukur 15:16, 11 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, but if all necessary content has been merged this can just be redirected. Please note that 'merge and delete' is not a valid option. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers issues

[edit]

This article was spun-off from the main article in a good-faith edit, however the content within is generally considered to be POV through discussion at WT:CMC. --Jamdav86 16:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article Creator Comment if you want to skim thru, read the points in bold. Hmm.. As the editor who split this article, I don't think I should have a say in the final decision to avoid conflict of interest. So, let me just give you the reasons of my actions. First, I stumbled upon this article when looking for info on death of superman. I like comic books, but am not a collector or an afficionado. (but perhaps I'm going there). When I found Avengers (comics) article I felt it was getting WP:SIZE, especially the Avengers (comics)#History and Avengers (comics)#Alternate Avengers section. Which I think should be merged into one section and moved split into another article on the History of Avengers (comics) but I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject to execute a good move. The next that IMHO should be split is List of Avengers issues which lists avenger issues. The AfD notice Jamdav86 left on my talk led me to the AfD which led to WT:CMC After browsing thru the WT:CMC, I couldn't find POV talks relating to the issues, just the bibliography notability debate. Which made me realize that there is a bibliography page on the avengers, here. Which in turn would mean that this is actually a duplicate article. So, I think it should rather be merged into that existing article, or if bibliography is deemed non notable, then the bibliography article should be merged into the list instead. Whichever the concensus leads to. I'd be bold and do that right now if it isn't because of AfD. On, the POV issue raised in this AfD. My search on the WP:CMC yield no talk on POV pertaining the content of the article. It's maybe buried in the archive. I dunno. But again, IMHO, POV issues should be solved with a WP:POV instead of an AfD and therefore, this nomination should be refused and the article should be kept with the merge point considered. Feureau 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, in this case (as in some others) I believe it would relate to WP:POV as it is more an issue of bias against certain issues instead of their notability. If it was a true List of Avengers issues, it would contain all issues of Avengers and the notability criteria would apply to the list as a whole, however that some/many issues are not included shows a bias against them, which is POV. --NewtΨΦ 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure that the "choice of issues briefly summarized in this list is POV" necessarily. It can simply mean that the list is incomplete and needs more information. Doczilla 17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info into Bibliography of Avengers titles and Delete. CovenantD 00:19, 20 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.--Andeh 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady

[edit]

He's just a player on a football team. What's so special about this? If anything its content shall be merged with New England Patriots. --HRosson 16:06, 11 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TR3HS

[edit]

Blatant vanity article solely created and edited by User:TR3HS. Fails all notability tests. Possibly a speedy? wikipediatrix 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:TR3HS just blanked this AfD page. wikipediatrix 16:54, 11 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. Yanksox 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Woods

[edit]

questionable notability; Google hits ambiguous and some possibly result from self-promotion - CobaltBlueTony 16:33, 11 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 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mason (TV presenter)

[edit]

Lack of multiple non-trivial sources per WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:47, 11 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. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline (band)

[edit]

One-line article about a band defunct since '97, with absolutely no claim of notability. Themindset 16:53, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Case

[edit]

When clearing the CAT:CSD backlog noticed the CSD A7 (aka {{db-bio}}) tagged was contested via {{hangon}}, thus I then prodded accordingly. Prod contested via my talk page as per:

Can you please review my revisions and discussion on the Jean Case page that you tagged for deletion? I am happy to make additional changes if you think they are warranted, but I removed many links and made the page more factual and straightforward biographical information. As a comparison, Kate Carr, the head of a brain cancer organization, has a page that's very similar, that wasn't tagged for deletion. What is the difference? I would say that Jean Case is a more notable figure as a philanthropist and former business executive, and the format of her bio is very similar.Mmiller20910, 11 October 15:55 (UTC)

So, here we are! I've done some google checks (will provide links when I have a spare mo) and I cant really ascertain any notability at all, but, throwing the ball into the consensus court as per policy.

Abstaining for now Glen 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely strong keep: Wife of Steve Case, Bush appointee, head of a notable charitable soundation and works closely with the first lady. One of the links is a Time magazine article she co-wrote with Laura Bush and Bill Clinton! I can't believe this was AfDed! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just following deletion policy, remomber it was tagged non-notable speedy deletion. If others agree (or when I actally look) it cold well speedy keep... and hey, at least the system works! Glen 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand why it was nommed, since the prod-removal explantion didn't do much to make her sound notable. But she's notable all the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep As a Presidential appointee and chair of a Presidential council who is referenced in other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't make sense to deny folks further information on Jean Case Vandemans 16:12, 16 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 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary calendar

[edit]

Delete There's no info here. It looks like someone posted this a long time ago not understanding Wiki. It hasn't been updated in ages. Violates WP:NOT 1.6 and 1.7

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No-one has attempted to demonstrate that the sources in the article are unreliable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James_Dicks

[edit]
James_Dicks was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dicks/2006-06-19.

This guy is not notable and there are very view factual reports about his activity Smtusa 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP James Dicks is very well known. He claims to be a best selling author, produces 12 hours of radio programming a day, claims to be the "world's leading expert in forex trading." There are 17,300 hits when googling for "James Dicks" and all the hits on the first several pages appear to refer to this guy. The article has several links including a Fox TV news report, a feature Houston Press (alternative) newspaper article, a financial website "Stupid Investment of the Week." And there are several rip-off reports. There is no question that the guy is notable. The article was originally put up as a puff advertising piece, and now that I've corrected it and made it NPOV, he wants to delete it. The previous vote was to KEEP after the corrections were made.Smallbones 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smallbones. I fail to see what has become deletion-worthy since the previous keep. - Lex 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smtusa. There are numerous false claims in this article and unless it can be proven that the aligations are true, they don't belong in Wikipedia. The whole article seems like it is trying to prove his guilt, when in fact he has never been convicted of these accusations. "He is reportedly the nephew of Charles Givens...." Where is the proof. Anyone can make statements like this and it seems this article is completely bias and draws conclusions without facts. Writing in such a manner is liable. FYI, it is not James Dicks who wants this article deleted (although I am sure he does), but me, for the sake of keeping Wikipedia free from bias opinions against those you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.232.253 (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 Nomination withdrawn. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Contagion

[edit]

To put it bluntly: complete bollocks. Mike Peel 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Yeah, it probably is complete bullocks, but it does seem to be part of certain belief systems. I found the term in use going back at least to 1911: it gets a mention in the famous 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Taboo as part of the desription of a Tongan purification rite. It also shows up in similar context in Frazer's The Golden Bough. The term seems to have originated with Émile Durkheim. It remains in use to day, as this shows it in the title of a modern theological paper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I'm having a go at rewriting this and bringing it up to scratch. I've removed every word of the original content, and rewritten it so that, while short, it's at least verifiable and makes sense. I'll see what else I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for rewriting the article. Now that the article is no longer trying to be pseudoscience, I no longer believe that the article should be deleted. In other words, I now retract my nomination (or alternatively, vote keep). Mike Peel 20:08, 11 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 Disambiguate to jungle music and Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. The original article could not appropriately be merged to Rock Music, so I have copied it into the talk page of Social effects of rock and roll from where it can be merged. Yomanganitalk 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle beat

[edit]

Pejorative term for rock'n'roll with no notability, all sources are weird religious blogs and websites, and a google search reveals that the term is almost universally linked to a video game, and sometimes a style of music. Basically, delete per WP:V, and WP:N. Themindset 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsensical music "analysis" and disambiguate to the game and jungle music. Gazpacho 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and disambiguate. It's incorrect to say that all the sources are "weird religious blogs and websites." Sources include an article from the New York Times, an article from Metroactive, this audio recording from the 1960s, and an article featuring the subject in Virtue Magazine. I think this concept is ludicrous, but it's something that exists and is verifiable. On top of these sources, I've actually heard a conservative pastor use the phrase on more than one occasion (of course, that's original research, but it does help to demonstrate that the idea exists). Additionally, one of the sources references another published source from Bob Jones University, though I don't have the actual source. Regarding its notability, my thoughts on the overuse of "notability" as a deleltion criterion can be found here in detail. This should be made into a disambiguation page and this article moved to Jungle beat (epithet) or something similar. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I am the nominator. Also, an article from the 60s, an article in "Virtue Magazine", and something published by Bob Jones University (not exactly the most credible of publishing houses) do not give a term currency. The google test is pretty conclusive; and even when the term is found in use through google, it is pretty much just a racist slur with no consistent semantic use or definition (other than as "black people" music). It's consistently used to refer to a video game, a style of music, and even a movie... but not what this article claims. Themindset 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, more accurately, we're dealing with a newspaper article from the 1990s, an audio recording from the 1960s, a 2006 article on the subject in a magazine, a 1980s New York Times article, and a BJU publication (which, by the way, is certainly a reliable source for what fundamentalist Christians think, wouldn't you say?). On top of those sources, we have the use of the term on the religious blogs and websites. While these websites and blogs are likely unreliable sources generally, they are certainly evidence that the term is used exactly as the article describes. If the problem is that this term can refer to multiple subjects, disambiguation, not deletion, is required. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. I suspect that's what 99% of the people who type "jungle beat" in are looking for, rather than an obscure anti-rock epitaph rarely used today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand This AFD is a classic example of common wrong-headed deletionist practices. If something doesn't pass the google test, or isn't something with which the typical North American wikipedian isn't familiar with, then it's put up for deletion. Oppositon to rock music was an extremely important part of American fundemantalist Protestantism for decades, and in terms of cultural history, this opposition, and the terminology it engendered is important. I would prefer to see an entire article on this kind of opposition to Rock music, and the ways in which it was amalgamized with Communism and everything else fundamentalist Protestants didn't like. And there's a lot of material out on these topics, but alas, a lot of it is in academic libraries and not in Google. So keep and mark for expansion. --Zantastik talk 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am an inclusionist, important thing to note since I nominated this article. This is a term that is not in currency, therefore not fit for an article. Perhaps the use of the term can be contained in an article like North American fundemantalist Protestant opposition to rock music or North American fundemantalist Protestant opposition to stuff in general they didn't like, or something of the sort. And, more to the point, to me Jungle beat means Drum and bass and is the more accurate meaning of the term. If someone comes on to wikipedia to look up Jungle beats and jungle music and the first line they see is "A jungle beat or jungle music is a beat or musical style that is inherently evil, immoral, and/or sensual"... well, that's a disservice to both the reader and to wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource. PS - the first keep voter is adding the same reference 4 times (at last count), making the article appear well-referenced at first glance. Themindset 20:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, how about a little good faith? Everything in the article is supported by the sources mentioned at the bottom of the article (and you miscounted, the source is linked 3 times in the article text, along with two others). Your unsupported assertion that people are searching Wikipedia for drum and bass if they type in "jungle beat" (actually, isn't that Jungle music?? and wasn't Starblind saying it meant a video game? so which of the three is it?) is a dubious ground for deletion when the article is verifiable. It is certainly evidence that this needs to be a disambiguation page, as there are clearly three or four subjects that could fall under the term "jungle beat". But no one other than me seems to be arguing for a dab at the moment, only for pure deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that such an article should exist, but that putting such an article at jungle beat would be illogical. A title like Opposition to rock music or Opposition to popular music would be far more logical and encyclopedic. The question we really need to be asking ourselves here is, "When someone types "Jungle beat" into the search box, what are they most likely trying to find?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to Rock music and disambiguate to jungle music and the video game. Gazpacho 21:11, 11 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 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The White Counsil

[edit]

Prod removed without comment, original prod Non notable forum, less than 2100 members, no assertion of notability, just celebrating its first anniversary This one year old forum is a place where people joined to play some online game. While the game may be notable by itself, the website fails web notability. Google gets around 1,000 hits, a search without Wikipedia, Answers and forum gets less than 50 hits. -- ReyBrujo 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


YET IT HAS MORE MEMBERS THAN CHEESEWEB OR THE DARK COUNCIL, AND THEY GET THEIR OWN TOPICS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.152.99 (talk • contribs) (The previous anonymous user appears to be in favour of "Keep". --Grimhelm 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]


Firstly, please do not type in all capitals. Secondly, Cheeseweb and the Dark Council fit under the criteria for web notability (these criteria are separate from the number of members):
If the White Counsil can make similar claims of web notability then please give these reasons for retention. Otherwise, relevant material (such as LDTW) can be merged into Games Workshop Online Community. --Grimhelm 13:32, 14 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, no claims of notability. It's also salted since this is the 4th deletion (started every time by the same user). - Bobet 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McIlhennon

[edit]

Teenage golfer. Not notable enough for WP:BIO even if everything in the article is true. Content is not verifiable. Prod removed by anon, possibly the author. Pan Dan 17:42, 11 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Matthew Fretz

[edit]

Another non-notable political candidate in race for which no election article exists. No sources given other than campaign site. Roughly 100 GHits, lead by campaign site and Wikipedia -- no hits in Google News. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V and proposed WP:C&E. David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:42, 11 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 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Academy

[edit]

I prodded this earlier with the reason "No sources, no claims of notability and I can't find anything (on google) to improve the article." It was contested with a message on Talk:Stone Academy (it's long so I won't post it here). Since I don't believe that a person's word is good enough as a source and the article still doesn't establish notability, I continue to believe that this should be deleted. - Bobet 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


one minor correction - it is reactionary McCarthyite Orwellian warmongering totalitarian truth-suppressing corporatist; so far as i know, this is all me (cinnamon colbert) If something is only available as oral history, why is a persons word not good enough ? this is a serious question that wiki needs to address; the idea that only things with printed sources deserve to be wikified is rediculous I have added info on notability; basically, communes were an important part of whatever it is that the "60s" were, and the New England communes are poorly docuemnted. the diatribe was, if anything, modest.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.137.141 (talk • contribs)

Why is one person's word not good enough? Because without sources there is no evidence that you aren't simply making it all up. IrishGuy talk 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so how many people do you need if one is not good, is two ? three ? If I pay for a vanity book at a vanity publisher, does that make it real ? You are arguing from a paper ency pov; the right way to do this is flag as single person oral history...
Re: vanity publisher, you're right that that doesn't count for much, and there's already policy on that. See Wp:rs#Self-published sources. Pan Dan 13:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Cinnamon colbert, you misunderstood my stupid joke--not your fault. I intended to exaggerate your diatribe by jokingly calling myself and the others opining to delete--not you--"corporatists" and such.) Pan Dan 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cinnamon colbert 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) OK, no problem (anon is me) see please Wikipedia problems[reply]

Comment: You've made a case that 1960s communes are notable in general, but you've said little about why this particular commune is itself notable, except as an example of the general phenomenon. I think a better project for you and other interested editors would be to add information about communes in general -- the Commune (intentional community) page at this point is little better than a disambiguation page. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 15:35, 12 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 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-democratic

[edit]

This is essentially a dictionary definition with very few links. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides, this term is already covered at Wiktionary wikt:anti-democratic SkerHawx 18:20, 11 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 Wwwwolf (reposted deleted page) - Yomanganitalk 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toraka

[edit]

This page has already been deleted as can be seen below L T Dangerous 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(snip original nomination, which was transcluded) Zetawoof(ζ) 19:10, 11 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 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Rafferty

[edit]

Article on a fictional character on a TV show who only appears in one episode of the TV show in question (The West Wing) and has barely 5 minutes of screentime in the episode.

[59] The link leads to the IMDb page for actress who played the character in question and the credit for her one performance can be found under #8 in the 'Actress' header. Needless to say a one episode apppearance does not nearly merit enough notability for an entire wikipedia page as there is sufficient information about the character in more general pages concerning The West Wing (see List of politicians on The West Wing and The West Wing presidential election, 2006) Thethinredline 18:36, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain... Begins to Die

[edit]

No indication of notability. Very little information and no reliable sources. Peephole 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers. Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and a Book by Aaron I Reichel Esq[60]--T. Anthony 09:05, 12 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 Angela. MER-C 03:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Professional Miniature Golf

[edit]

This is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. — Reinyday, 18:48, 11 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 no consensus. Any way you sort the arguments, there is no consensus to keep or delete here. --Coredesat 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.N.U.S.

[edit]

Was voted for deletion before, vanity page, is now back inexplicably 142.167.95.132 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original AFD here Yomanganitalk 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the 2nd ANUS page on wikipedia because I was pretty irritated that I had to read through a bunch of anus materials to determine what they really were. I actually visited Wikipedia immediately after I saw the first page so that I could hopefully get an objective view of what ANUS was. Unfortunately the page wasn't there and I was forced to read through some really awful articles on their webpage. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a totally different article than before. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old article can be found here (http://www.anus.com/etc/wikipedia/), the new article is not a re-creation. The GNAA have their own page and frankly ANUS has been more active than the GNAA as of late. Not surprisingly they are the 2nd google hit for the query "anus" --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:V? --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is ANUS itself - not a third party. The second is GNAA - not reliable. The third documents its Alexa ranking, which only verifies that the website exists but not much else. The fourth is a directory which, reliable or not, would again only verify that the site exists. The fifth is the site itself. That leaves a lack of reliable third party sources establishing anything notable or verifying most of the content within the article. GassyGuy 07:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article now. It is pretty verifiable and there are many external sites mentioning ANUS pranks. --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were new links added from multiple sources other than "trolls" why do they not fit in with WP:RS? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how the article does not meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a matter of quantity of resources; it's about quality. Again, none of these are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the site; at best, they establish that it exists, or are from GNAA or the site itself, which obviously don't count since those are not third parties (the article claims that ANUS is affiliated with GNAA). GassyGuy 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MTV article is close, but alas, it does far more to confirm the notability of Slayer than ANUS. The others, again, while mentioning ANUS, do little but confirm that the website exists. GassyGuy 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to you I think it is more reference than one can expect for a site about heavy metal. If you look at the other sites in the google link I posted above, you will notice that the important ones have Wikipedia entries, too (Encyclopedia Metallum, BNR Metal). Mainstream reference is even rarer for those sites. It is in the nature of a subgenre that is not well presented in mainstream publications, but this alone doesn't make ANUS non-notable. Best Regards, Aor 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the references can do is confirm that the site exists, then it leaves little too no verifiable content about the website for the article. Per WP:V, you cannot have articles without verifiable content. Per WP:OR, you cannot just use the site itself to write about it. If heavy metal websites do not get mainstream coverage, then they shouldn't get Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it documents things which meet the guidelines; it does not need to acknowledge the presence of everything under the sun, and especially not everything on the Internet. GassyGuy 07:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a problem in your skewed standards. Those other sites are not nominated for deletion, because they don't offend as ANUS does. Although there are clearly more external references for ANUS than for, say, Enclopdia Metallum, ANUS is nominated for deletion. In consequence it appears that this article is focused on and nominated for deletion because of its content, and not because of notability issues. I myself leave the ANUS doctrine aside, judge by the various references on the article page alone and come to the conclusion that ANUS is noteworthy. n.b. I don't call for the deletion of other heavy metal articles, this is just to show the hypocrisy of this debate. Best Regards, Aor 11:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If what you say is true, then I would likely express a similar opinion at an AfD for Encyclopedia Metallum. I have not had a chance to look at that article. However, your argument is specious. I have told you what my problem with the ANUS article are. Others cite similar claims. It is really a matter of addressing them. If other websites have similar problems meeting WP:V, they should be nom'ed for deletion, but the existence of other articles that should be deleted is not a reason to keep this one. GassyGuy 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of what use are guidelines that are enforced only, or more strictly, on articles with offending/dissident content? That is not in any way an encyclopedic approach, and I can only reiterate my conclusion which springs from such behaviour: that something else than the denied encyclopedic adequacy of the topic motivates those who nominate the article for deletion. As a result, articles like ANUS get singled out while others, which, by your standards should have long been deleted (if you abode by those standards), remain. In the end, this hilarious debate is pointless. Those who want the article removed because they have personal objections, which of course aren't sufficient reason for deletion, are not honest and do not aim for consensus. Best Regards, Aor 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, any argument based upon some supposed equality between ANUS and Encyclopedia Metallum is flawed right from the start. ANUS has a current Alexa rank of 66,041, while EM's is only 4,781... more than ten times better than ANUS. (Yes, I know Alexa isn't everything, but it's the quickest way to compare two websites, and these two aren't even in the same ballpark). Believe it or not, this is an argument we've heard countless times before, in misguided support of everything from high-school athletes to video game ROM hacks to people's pet cats. In fact, we hear it so much that there's even a couple of essays written specifically as a rebuttal to this argument. See WP:INN and WP:ILIKEIT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare the Alexa ratings of ANUS to that of the GNAA. GNAA has 307,527, while ANUS has 68,721. Popular media outlets have covered ANUS's exploits. Even admins like JoshuaZ agree this article meets WP:WEB. Also, this article is not the same article that was deleted long ago. You are welcome to compare articles (I provided links at the top). --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do remember consensus. We remember consensus to delete this article the first time, and we remember consensus to keep it deleted in at least two DRV votes. What we don't remember is consensus to create it again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone can procure some reliable, third-party sources, I'll vote for keep on this one, because of its amount of ghits (9,990 for the entire name) and its alexa ranking of 66,041 (with around 30,000,000 hits per day). If reliable, third-party sources can't be found, then I vote for a delete and protect from recreation. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These people are obviously fascistic nazis neo-pagan types, and society is falling enough down the drain due to right-wingers. I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place that advances a point of view, but for the sake of minorities, let's not let these people have a platform to stand on. Isn't that what democracy is about -- letting everybody have a say? These people wouldn't let minorities have a say. These people would censor wikipedia in the unmitigating pursuit to destroy freedom and coerce people into thinking their way. With that, my vote is a sound delete. --Iconoclast 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do the above correctly? I'm a black man, you see. A gay one, at that. I don't want to be disenfranchised. --Iconoclast 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here want to play Dungeons and Dragons: E-Bureaucrat adventure? 3.5 edition rules. --Iconoclast 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A legitament organization, trolls or not--ABigBlackMan 14:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name entices me. Wanna chat? --Iconoclast 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many articles remain from groups like SomethingAwful for Memes that are obscure/specific to them. ANUS arguably, especially in the black metal world, has some relevance and lots of history behind it. This article had clarified to me what ANUS was when I heard a casual mention of them on IRC a while back. There's no need for it to fall to people who want to delete it for personal reasons. ContivityGoddess
I've already commented above on why the references on the page do not count as WP:RS and find it insulting that you think I would comment before reading the article. Please reread WP:AGF. GassyGuy 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed since the initial AFD. I've asked you if you have read the new article and looked at the new links but you haven't responded to my questions. --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I already covered the revised article when I had my discussion with Aor... GassyGuy 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do the following links fail WP:RS [61] [62] [63]? They are all mainstream media and the Houston Press article covers what the group ANUS is. I read WP:RS and the 3 links I gave examples are reliable secondary sources. Even the non-english one is considered legitimate by WP:RS. --TrollHistorian 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Clarin article doesn't say anything about ANUS except confirmation that it exists and is somehow associated with metal - that's not non-trivial coverage. The Launch one is also not non-trivial; it's more about the Slayer incident than ANUS, who is simply mentioned in passing as being associated with it. The Houston one is the strongest of the three, but it's not being featured in a real article, it's part of a "best of" special feature. That's borderline; it may or may not count as non-trivial coverage by a reliable source, but I hardly see that as strong evidence of notability any more than a paragraph in any other special interest (e.g., the tech section) area of a paper would qualify most sites. GassyGuy 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It seems that the sickeningly egalitarian rules on this let's-pretend 'encyclopedia' deem it permissible to have articles like "List of props appearing in episode 432 of The Simpsons" but regard articles about subcultural phenomena, especially when the philosophies espoused by such subcultures go against the grain of placid Hindu-cattle conformity which this 'encyclopedia' promotes, to be a waste of precious server space. The irony of this is that the fool who nominated this article for deletion clearly doesn't even understand the first thing about what he read in the article. He claims that this is vanity. The thing is, Yomangani, vanity is a distinctly un-nihilistic trait. There is no reason for a nihilist to be vain, because it is placing value upon something that is transitory and fleeting. It seems to be thing at Wikipedia, though, that ignorance, political correctness, pseudoscientific twaffle and Judeo-Christian moral systems are regarded as sacrosanct, while logic, beauty and intellectualism are condemned as not being important enough for inclusion.

Iconoclast, so anything can be included in this pretty 'encyclopedia' except for 'fascistic neopagan ideology'? Let me tell you something, fool. Nihilism implies atheism, not neopaganism. Neopaganism is a pointless romantic revisionist historical creation which, while having aesthetic appeal to some, is far removed from any critically tenable conception of the world. You're ignorant, Iconoclast, but we agree on one thing. The world is indeed deteriorating. But the world is not deteriorating because of black metal. It is deteriorating because people are terrified of the truth, and would rather exist in a novocainesque facade of shopping malls, designer clothing, plastic music and trendy stupidity. The fact that there are some people who would rather have no part of that existence is mortally offensive to these herd-grazers, and that is why they want to delete this article. But this 'encyclopedia' is also helping the world to destroy itself. Knowledge is not for everyone. It is not democratic. Knowledge is an aristocracy. A fool cannot savour the existential fullness granted by reading the works of Nietzsche, or playing with the abstractions of higher mathematics. They content themselves here by editing articles on the local highway and their favourite television show. Pseudoscience is promoted here at the same level as real science. Religion is privileged above art.

That being said, there is no real reason why this article should be here. Its presence merely indicates perceived importance on the part of those who are not fit to judge. Nonetheless, it would illustrate just how fucking hypocritical the ostensive egalitarian nature of this 'encyclopedia' is, if the article were to be deleted. Any ideology has to censor that which poses a threat to itself. And while I do not delude myself into thinking that the ideology of black metal poses any real threat to the nauseating stupor of left-liberalism at the moment, its time will come. The reaction, though, of people to intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism is an inbuilt and natural extension of the left-liberal mindset, because ultimately this is what poses the biggest threat to the 'utopia' in which we live. So, if the people at Wikipedia are to truly practice the revolting morality which they preach, they will keep this article, not because they agree with it, or because it is in accord with whatever insane so-called 'rules' there are here. They will keep this article to avoid making bigger prats of themselves than they already are.

Now have fun, everybody, finding your 'consensus'. But know that consensus among fools will represent only foolishness. You make me laugh. --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm not going to read all that (I do not want to get a heart attack as a black man such as myself has heart disease), but what it boils down to is whether or not it is good for minorities. ANUS isn't good for minorities -- it is actively racist and anti-Jew (the worst of the worst as anti-Semitism has always been the highest evil) and supports neo-nazi skinhead music like Skrewdriver, Burzu, Graveland, Bully Boys, and so on. I think that what it boils down to is not whether it is notable or not, but whether or not it should be notable. Get it? Get it? --Iconoclast 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, although it's not very often I get to agree with a gay gentleman of colour (with heart disease)...you're being very subtle. Although what's also subtle is how I could change my vote from 'keep' to 'delete' but it still makes sense. I think that should tell everybody something, but I shan't bother explaining what ;[ --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A.N.U.S is an absolutely superb resource for numerous musical genres and subcultures. It is particularly insightful and well written. Indeed as someone who specialised in music youth and subculture as part of thier political studies I can only but wonder why this sight has been deemed inapproprate for this site. I would go so far as to argue that its relevance is particulalry pertinent due to the sure number of related pages of this nature concerning music in the metal scene. Many of those above that have nominated this page for deletion furthermore seem totally unfamiliar with the topic at hand and its deeper meaning and consequence for those who live this style of life and make it thier approach and philosophy. I think it would be sad to delete this page and if this is then the case it is only further indication of the increasingly deteriating quality of wikipedia as a whole. Spectral Delight 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This site should not be deleted as it supports metal. It is a cool source of info on bands and stuff and has some interesting ideas on why bands play the way they do etc...

Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. The Crying Orc 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is death for true metal, fool. Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation. Non-notable and of course having an article on Wikipedia is a troll itself, and there's no reason to give them any satisfaction. Recury 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy against describing groups which Wikipedians might not like? --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, troll! How's the trolling? Not too obvious, I hope. Recury 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TrollHistorian is not a troll. What we see here, though, is the act of accusing someone of being a troll so you can rhetorically deny the value of his contribution to the discussion (Fallacy). Also, the ANUS article is not a troll. Best Regards, Aor 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for similar organizations on Wikipedia, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Cult of the Dead Cow. The former has withstood votes for deletion several times, and the latter does not appear to be controversial. Thus I think American Nihilist Underground Society is also a legitimate article for a notable organization. --Afed 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anus is definitely more notable than the GNAA or even the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, and both articles have survived deletion votes before. Anus has been around longer (since the BBS era), operates several websites (Anus.com, Corrupt.org, Sodomy.org and many more) and has been more active recently than GNAA, "trolling" both the cyberspace and meatspace (through flyering). Besides, Anus is much more than a simple trolling organisation, it advocates a philosophy and a lifestyle, and has articles that inform a certain subcuture (Death Metal / Nihilist culture) I can't see why it is less notable than Wipipedia which serves approximately the same purpose for the BDSM subculture. In fact, it can be said that the articles on Anus.com constitute social commentary that qualifies it on the same level of notability as Lew Rockwell.com and various other social commentary websites.

Nominations for deletion by anonymous SPAs should be disreguarded. This does not seem to be someone with a legitimate interest in improving Wikipedia. --Afed 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Wikipedia has policies like WP:WEB which is ANUS definately meets via mainstream media mentions.--TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The following links (listed under external links in the article) show satisfy WP:V and WP:WEB [64] [65] [66] [67]. JoshuaZ 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As many have shown above, there are at least as valid reasons for the present article as for a rather large percentage of Wikipedia articles. Apparently, people who do not understand a topic that deviates from what they are used to, try out scrutinizing to a level never used for more mainstream topics. — SomeHuman 18 Oct2006 23:44 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. ANUS is a useful source for Nihilism and one of the most well-known sources for underground metal. The site itself has caused quite a bit of controversy, and for this reason and the many other reasons mentioned above is a noticeable internet topic that fits the nature of this encyclopedia. Macellarius 02:35, 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 06:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Township of Asstree, Alabama

[edit]

Apparant hoax; possible recreation of the Asstree, Alabama article which has been deleted seven times now. No relevant Google hits; not mentioned on what I assume is the official Marion County, Alabama site or the State of Alabama's Marion County site. ergot 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the same content, but that article never went through an AFD discussion. Uncle G 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. This hoax has managed to elude detection for quite some time (nearly three months, I belive) which qualifies it to be listed in our notable hoaxes category. Someone please do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.2.205 (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 - Yomanganitalk 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man (tool-assisted speedrun)

[edit]

Incomplete speedrun vanity, laying fallow for far too long. This came to AFD once before, where it was kept, no consensus, because the author claimed that there was much more that could be said. The closer even commented specifically that, were this article not to improve, it would need to come back to AFD.

That was back in June. Now it's October, and the only edits made to the article since June are the addition of a handful of mirror links (all automatically generated or self-submitted) or other minor corrections. No coverage in reliable sources independent of the creators has been added (TASVideos is an archive of self-submitted speedruns, the Gamespot and YouTube links are merely mirrors.) How long does vanity get to lay around until some effort is made to make the subject encyclopedic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 11 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Percleus (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Subject is an insufficiently notable content management system; see WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. As such, there are no credible, third-party sources available to verify the contents as required by WP:V. The official website appears to have been dormant since May 2005, and the software is used by only two minor websites. Googling produces only 20 unique hits, many of them unrelated sites or wiki-mirrors of this article. Was nominated for deletion in April 2005, but result was No Consensus with 1 delete opinion, 1 keep opinion, and 2 abstaining comments. No improvements or significant edits have been made in the past 2½ years. Thank you, Satori Son 19:12, 11 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. JPD (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline André

[edit]

vanity for NN-designer DesertSky85451 19:50, 11 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 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation telic medal

[edit]

This page relates to the Campaign medal issued by the UK Ministry of Defence for service in the Iraq War 2003- (known within the UK defence establishment as Operation TELIC). The official name of the medal is the Iraq Medal. The description 'Operation telic medal' is factually incorrect, it seems to have been created in error, perhaps by an editor who is unfamiliar with the area of military awards. Xdamrtalk 19:46, 11 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. JPD (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Bowden

[edit]

Non-notable academic. Web search backs this up, with most relevant records simply being databases pulling from his Wikipedia entry. Tim D 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is a Google search sans Wikipedia references. From what I see, it's all local theater material, forum postings, and a few references to a study that he did about the benefits of eating together as a family [70] [71]. Futher a PsycINFO search for his research shows 5 journal publications by authors named Blake Bowden (may or may not be him): 1 from 1995, 3 from 1997, and 1 from 2004. None of this signals national notoriety in my opinion. -- Tim D 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, Capitalistroadster: before basing a decision on this, note the content of the news archives (e.g., local sports coverage of other people, etc.), and that Bowden is an author in only two papers shown in Google Scholar. I'm not trying to be pushy, I just want the conclusions to come from the right places. -- Tim D 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is Bowden being judged as an academic, a practitioner, or as a writer/performer? Bowden is none of these alone. Bowden does his work as a psychologist and writer/actor and manages to churn out an occasional scholarly article for publication/presentation in refereed journals. He also manages to practice his profession, and to write/produce original plays. What criteria do you judge someone who does 3 careers (Pediatric Psych, School Psych, Playwright/actor) all at once - and has achieved some attention in each (CNN, USNEws, AP, French Documentary, Creative Class, etc.) Theguyinblue 14 October 2006
  • Comment. Cliffs notes from the talk page: the only role that matters is that which gets national attention, i.e., his academic work. Local theater and private practice work unfortunately mean very little when it comes to encyclopedic notoriety. -- Tim D 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment. 'Local theater' agreed. When is local theater not local? When it is picked up on international websites? When it is featured in a European documentary? I'm not sure that this is really 'local,' is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 October 2006.
  • Comment. I would say that theater is not local when it moves beyond the local area, either by tour or by popularity. So if there is something going on in Cincinnati and moderately theater-conscious people in Chicago are not aware of it, then it probably qualifies as "local." -- Tim D 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I agree, theatre is not local when it moves beyond the local area - but not by tour or popularity alone - not only because you argue against 'popular press' as a reason to delete Bowen's article. The international attention Bowen accrued for his theatre accomplishments outweigh what 'theatre-concious people in Chicago' might be aware of. Mary Zimmerman's work on The Oedypus was not noted when she first produced it in Chicago in the late 80s but has since gained at least national (if not international attention). Have all of Chicago theatre folks heard of this production? Let's not let provincialism among a select few from the city of big shoulders diminish the international accomplishments of writing/producing three shows in three years SIMULTANEOUSLY (but before in each case) with an international film release of related content. Yes? Besides - the productions in Cincinnati appeared to have done better than the 'big guy' (with tons more money and marketing) in Toronto... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 October 2006
  • Comment Don't get too hung up on my using Chicago as an example. I probably should have written "City A" and "City B" rather than two specific names. Anyway, I think all that's been said about the matter has been said. If it can be shown that he is well known outside of local circles, then his article is legitimate. From what I've seen so far, that isn't the case. Nothing personal, of course, if you happen to know him. -- Tim D 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case this wasn't clear from my previous posts. Whether as an academic, a private practitioner, or an artist: Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 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 - apart from the well-argued comments from Pascal.Tesson, the keep opinions were either directed at the nominator's character or from a single purpose account. The consensus is that this is non-notable Yomanganitalk 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatholes

[edit]

The article reads like an advertisement, is not notable, and all attempts to clean it up are quickly reverted by vandals to read, once again, just like an advertisement Orayzio 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and weep. Rewrite. Protect if need be This is a sick site that has gotten non-trivial third-party coverage for their actual abuse of women [74] [75] [76] (linked to in the article) but also [77]. The name has often come up in blogs relating to censorship and the limits of decency. I think the article of the newpartisan [78] is particularly disturbing and in facts makes a perfect case as to why Wikipedia should keep the article. Not to promote the site, not to denounce the site as indecent but to explain where it fits in the pornography world and to gather the little bit of reliable information that exists about it beyond all the advertising of its creators and, sadly, fans. Pascal.Tesson 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's kept, it will need to be protected. Anonymous IP users keep changing any of my edits that try to make it less of an advertising page and much less hyperbole. I'll be out of town for two weeks, so I can't monitor it. -Orayzio 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps remove the allegation the the series creator is Bill Handel's brother, other than that there is no problem. This user who nominated it, nominated the other day too before any edit war happened, he (Orazio?) has clearly a religious censorship agenda. This man is trying to censor all the articles about the adult industry! The fact is that this has been a well trafficked article since May, the wikipedia article is the second google search result for meatholes and provides useful information about the series, its creator, and the women who have been in it, and the like, whats more i count about 50 unique editors since may, this article should never be deleted OR protected and requests to unprotect will be forthcoming if it ever gets protected, especially if it is protected after the right wing christian orayzio gets his slash and burn edits.Keep--0000001 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (a few of them). First, the article can be semi-protected if people agree that anonymous editors persistently try to sway the content in an overly sympathetic way. Second, no one owns the page so if you go away for a week then that's not any other editor's problem. Third, there's no need for the right-wing-christian-censorship-conspiracy-theory scare here. Let's just look at the bare facts (no pun intended): the article contains quotes like "Tusion's 'Meatmembers Network' continues to grow in popularity exponentially and doesn't show any sign of slowing down.", there's no mention of the serious accusations formulated by a number of pornstars against unscripted abuse, there's completely unverifiable research like "However it can be said that through anecdotal evidence that it can be determined that he is in fact a white male in approximately his mid forties. Mr. Tusion is said to be a wealthy real estate speculator and family man, if this is indeed the case, then this could perhaps be posited as the catalyst for his anonymous orientation as an artist.". Let's face it: the article as it stands is a prime example of what good Wikipedia articles should not be. And it's not the christian right's fault, it's what happens when the article is maintained by essentially one user, namely 0000001 (talk · contribs), who is either a big fan or someone related to the site (all his Wikipedia edits are to meatholes related) and where anonymous IPs keep adding extra spam. 000001 you claim that there are 50 unique editors but you're counting the anonymous IPs! remove them and the people that obviously are only editing because they're on RC patrol and you'll be hard pressed to find more than a dozen significant contributions. As for it being the second Google result, let me assure you that if this article received the significant traffic you claim, then it would be the first hit.Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep. I agree with 00001 this is imperitive that this religious guy doesn't get his way. There is no way this is an advertisement, it doesn't even list the official site, and it is about a website! what a joke! It is just like an entry for a rock album or something which says what label it is distributed under, hence giving information as to where one could acquire the product, it is informative about the series creator, if you are gonna tear that up, why don't we separate it and make Khan Tusion his own article just like Max Hardcore? Bet you wouldn't like that, there has also been numerous articles written about this guy and his series, and it is a popular series...the religious agenda here is so clear. Someone should ban Orayzio indefinitely for wasting all our time.--BringTheBiff 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this is (of course?) BringTheBiff (talk · contribs)'s first and only edit. --Brianyoumans 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to my critics, please remember the rule of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Second, I am both an atheist and a liberal, I support pornography, and I abhor censorship; I nominated this article for deletion because it reads like an advertisement and because there is no evidence that Meatholes is as popular as the article states. In my view, it is not a notable subject for Wikipedia, but my view is just that, my view. Third, my edits have all been explained in edit summaries and are backed up by opinions states on the talk page. If anyone disagrees with any edit, they should discuss this disagreement on the talk page before they revert anyone's edits that were made in good faith. My edits have gone towards the goal of making the article better. I've removed questionable assertions that have no references (including a link to an IMDb biography that contains no content and I've tried to make the article read less like ad copy for the Meatholes network.
As to the statement that this article doesn't even include a link to the Official Site, it contained an affiliate tagged URL that redirected to the Meatholes tour page, which was obvious advertising. I've replaced this with a link to the offical site, not once, but twice now. The first time it was reverted back to the spammy link.
My opinion is that "Meatholes", as presented in the current version of this article, is still not notable and should not be in this encyclopedia. However, if the consensus is that the article can be improved to become notable, I wholly support that and my edits have gone towards that goal. -Orayzio 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming that the previous right-wing conspiracy accusations are nonsense. However, I have a slight beef (still no pun intended) with that last comment: the debate should not be about whether the current article reads as advertisement. I think it undisputably needs to be severely rewritten and carefully watched in the future (that is, if it is kept at all). The current debate is whether or not this is a subject on which one could write a significant article that meets our criteria with respect to notability of web content, verifiability and neutrality. I don't claim to have a definite answer to that question but that's what the debate should be centered on.Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Seems like a very minor player, mostly mentioned in articles for being extreme and unpleasant. Article is mostly ad copy. Unless someone can write a good NPOV article that establishes notability, why have an article on this guy? --Brianyoumans 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of the articles listed above are principally about Meatholes. The New Partisan pieces (how notable is this online journal anyways?) are interviews with porn stars; in one case her work for Meatholes is discussed at length, in the other it was mentioned briefly. Another of the articles does not mention Meatholes at all, but the site is mentioned in the reader comments. The New Partisan editor was evidently planning an article on extreme porn, but I don't see any signs that the article got written. AVN online is an industry publication, the article is about a group of several sites including Meatholes. --Brianyoumans 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I will change my vote to weak keep: I may have overestimated the quality of the third-party references a bit. But I still think the article has some interest, provided that it can be maintained at an acceptable tone and neutrality. Pascal.Tesson 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have blocked 00000001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for once again removing the AfD notice from the article after being warned not to do so. The user had only 4 edits to Wikipedia, 2 of them to remove the AfD from that article. No vote from me on keeping or deleting the article, but if it is kept I support semi-protection of the article. I have had to warn numerous IP addresses about bad behavior (unreference clains, talk-page blanking, etc.) on that article and I don't even check it that regularly. Johntex\talk 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to delete. I am now convinced they are a minor player in the porn industry and not-notable enough for an article. Johntex\talk 19:18, 9 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given some of the comments, I think we need some more !votes in this AfD to gain opinion from a wider audience. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a niche porn site, and the sooner it's removed the better. Wildthing61476 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With no source citations, there's no verification that anything the article says is true. And the reader shouldn't be forced to browse the external links to look for that verification. Most of the unsourced info was about living persons in direct violation of WP:BLP, so I've removed it. which now reduces the article to a stub. wikipediatrix 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly referenced, and the article contains no real assertion of notability. WP:WEB requires that the article, or its talk page, assert the notability of the site, which this does not.-- danntm T C 01:12, 12 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Jordan

[edit]

(edit conflict) Procedural nomination. While a CSD A7 was placed in the article, the discography at least warrants another look to see if it's really notable or not. He's released a lot of stuff, but most of the labels are redlinked except Sublight Records. In addition, it could really use third-party reliable sources. Neutral for now. If deleted, all of his record articles will have to be deleted as well. ColourBurst 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opuszczony (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 20:09:32
    • But they may also be neutralized and cleaned up. Uncle G 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does appearing on a few compilations and mostly self-released or short-run records meet notability standards? Previous unverifiable claims of using "homemade software" (see earlier versions of entry) that have been cleaned up also lead one to believe that the artist is using wikipedia as a means for shameless self-promotion to create the illusion of greater notability. There is but one external source or citation within the entire article, currently a dead link. No offense meant to the artist, but what is the baseline of this idea of notability? By this precedent, anyone who has released a recording at all seems to meet its standard. solidarnosc dla robotników. 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please is important breakcore artist for us to have — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recury (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 23:42
  • Keep - Benn is a notable artist in his genre. The article could use some cleanup, yes, but I don't feel deleting it is a good solution. --doofsmack 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The reason this deletion request exists is because of vandalism from teenagers on a message board, and has little to no merit. This artist has released a lot of significant albums, many of which are available through mainstream distributors (Best Buy, Amazon, etc) in America and Europe. A couple minutes research will show you that he has a significant following as well as attention from the media.

Furthermore he has toured around the world and composed music for many popular television shows, advertisements, and films. This page has been copied on other sites such as answers.com, about.com, and other information databases. That alone should tell you that this information has a place here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.26.171 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment

I just want to warn you that articles being copied onto other sites isn't evidence of notability, or lack of it being evidence of lack of notability. about/answers/etc copy the whole of the wikipedia database from time to time and host it on their own servers, which means any article that is on there was in the database at the time they copied it. It doesn't mean anything else. As for significant, who says they're significant, and have they put their opinions in a reliable source? That's the question I'm asking in the procedural nomination, and nobody wants to answer it for some reason (I can't because I'm not familiar with the breakcore genre). If you guys know that much about him, you can surely find sources (since you claim he's toured around the world, one of WP:MUSIC's criteria). ColourBurst 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lists the following information about this large American tour: "THE DILLINGER ESCAPE PLAN have also announced a full North American headlining tour, their first since late 2004. The tour begins November 6 in Ottawa at the Babylon Club and includes HELLA (through November 27), THE BRONX (November 28 onward), BETWEEN THE BURIED AND ME, HORSE THE BAND and THE FLASHBULB."

On the events page listed on his website, he has some past tourdates listed in the frame: http://www.theflashbulb.net/events.htm

Here is another article I found about him (and not just a review) from the Pittsburgh City Paper, a widely circulated and respected newspaper for the area. URL here: http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=Music%20Previews&action=getComplete&ref=5737

Here is a link to Discogs.com, which uses more rigorous voting method to verify artist's releases: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Flashbulb,+The

Although this is missing a lot of information, here is an IMDB page made for his film composing work: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1651685/

Here is a link verifying that this artist is sponsered by a major music software company: http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/Native-Instruments-Native-Lab-Kore-Tour.html

Furthermore, this artist has extensive releases listed and supplied everywhere from iTunes to Amazon to retail stores. It's clear to me that he most definately has a place here on Wikipedia.

  • I vote to keep this. Benn has definitely distinguished himself enough to warrant his own article - and this can be cleaned up (I wouldn't mind doing it myself). Same goes for his albums; they are all very unique. « SCHLAGWERKTalk to me! 04:04, 16 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. Yanksox 03:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSym

[edit]

nn websites.--Ooo222 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Ooo222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whacker

[edit]

Firefighter neologism, unsourced except for Urban Dictionary and one business (see talk page). NawlinWiki 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1st Response from author:I added more links. Why don't you call your local fire department and ask them for a defitition before you come to the conclusion that this does not exist. Thanks. thejax
    • Reply The additional links are helpful. I'd still feel better if you had a reliable source (like a newspaper article) that specifically discussed or defined what a "whacker" is. That said, it's your job, as the article creator, to make sure that the article is backed by verifiable sources. It's not other editors' responsibility to "call their local fire department" to verify an article. Finally, the article is no longer tagged for speedy deletion, so there's no need to repost the hangon tag. AFD discussions normally run for five days. If there are reputable news sources, that should be enough time to find them. NawlinWiki 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Response from author:Though I know it is my responsibility to show factual information, it does not give you the right to say its not factual just because you are ignorant on the subject of volunteer emergency services. If you don't know anything about this subject and refuse to contact anyone to see if its factual, then why would you tag the page for speedy deletion. That is like me tagging your John Anderson page because I have no idea who he is. I don't know anything about sports so i should just ASSUME what you say is false? No, I'm not going to do that. Why? Because unlike some people, not saying you, I do not refute information that I am not aware of. But hey, thats me. Don't you think I have a point. If I were you I would be like, "yeah, he has a point. I think I will also take the initiative to find out if this is correct because I jumped to conclusions without all the information". At least thats what i would do. ----thejax
  • Delete. Even if this is for real, it's still an obscure occupational slang term and without sources, there's no evidence it needs an article of its own. (On a side note, 99.9 of this article would have to be removed even if the article isn't deleted, because it's atrociously written and completely POV and OR from start to finish.) wikipediatrix 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, and extremely POV. Unless a source can be cited (and the entire article rewritten). Wavy G 02:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I placed the original speedy-delete tag on the article (which was removed without comment by the author). I suppose that tagging this as nonsense was a stretch, but the POV nature of it, its obscurity, the in-joke feel it has, all led me to that conclusion. I then received a message from thejax on my talk page questioning my courage and calling me ignorant. Such comments certainly did not induce me to change my opinion. This simply does not read as an encyclopaedia article, as has been stated above, no matter what said author thinks. ---Charles 19:38, 12 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 nom by SPA. Aaron 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash

[edit]

non-notable aircraft crasheds, wikipedia is not wikinews. Onnnpodd 20:26, 11 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Technical Institute

[edit]

Non-notable school Nehwyn 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination did not dispute verifiability; it disputed notability. --Nehwyn 17:45, 16 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 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC Marlin

[edit]

Despite having his own merchandise [www.cafepress.com/mcmarlin] this MC appears to be entirely self-produced. There is no note of having done anything that might satisfy WP:MUSIC. He gets about 300 Google hits. His 'associated band' is even less notable. DJ Clayworth 20:30, 11 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 deleted under G11. Angela. 01:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News2

[edit]

Non-notable website, article reads like an ad. RedRollerskate 20:44, 11 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. It's a copyright violation. Hiding Talk 13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fangu

[edit]

A google search turned up very little about this lesser known character. Wikipedia isn't a guide to fan's favorites, and is certainly not a comic guide to characters with only a few appearances. This is fancruft at best. RobJ1981 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that if we don't keep it, we Merge into Nick Fury's Howling Commandos instead of deletion. Yes, it's a minor character - and the Howling Commandos series didn't last long. But it might be better to include this on the Howling Commandos page rather that removing it entirely? --Mrph 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mrph since the Nick Fury's Howling Commandos page is kinda small at the moment but since Fangu is up for deletion, why not decimate the rest of the WikiComicsBook Project starting with the Xavier Institute students, then the Morlocks, the Acolytes, bit characters who lost or retained their powers from Decimation and while you're at it the bit-characters who are currently taking part in Marvel's Civil War since there are WAY more minor characters on this thing than just Fangu. I only added him since he was red-linked and you did say Fangu "appeared to be a fancruft". Take a look at the rest of the Marvel Universe on here. Most of it is fancruft and unless you're just "stalking" me then stop. It's kinda annoying but like anything I, or only else that doesn't spend 24/7 on this site stuck in the comics universe, can say to stop Fangu or any other "minor" characters from getting deleted because someone thinks it a load of fan based crap. But for now I'm happy with Fangu getting merged though I'd rather keep him in since he is still a member of S.H.I.E.L.D. and it's not like I'm adding all SHIELD's agents on here. "That's what a list is for... blah blah blah"Originalsinner 03:33, 12 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, though from an editor's point of view it would seem sensible to redirect the article to Rocky until there is something more to say. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Rico

[edit]

There is so little to say on Spider Rico that is worth noting, the other two entries are unsourced and about other things, I prodded it but decided to do this this way

†he Bread 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly what I was thinking, what do you do if he appears in two movies, It certainly doesn't deserve its own article though †he Bread 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Merge the small amount of info here to the Rocky article, then delete the article which otherwise would seem to be a disambiguation page for two non-notable bands. If he's in the newest Rocky movie, the info should be for him in Rocky Balboa, unless something in the plot changes dramatically and prominently features Spider Rico. --Daniel Olsen 23:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can, but by how much, at present there is pretty much nothing to say about hime †he Bread 04:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is to be seen. Another example I can think of would be Al Neri from the Godfather movies. He was nothing more than basically a background charcter in the first two films, but by the third movie, his role expanded quite a bit. I'm just saying, it could happen. Wavy G 04:58, 12 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. Would certainly benefit from more sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:BLP. Deizio talk 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Parker

[edit]

7th oldest person in the world at one point in time is not wikipedic imo. Dave 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' seventh oldest now. Uncle Kitia`
  • Weak keep. She's one of the 10 oldest living people on Earth; that makes her pretty notable. RedRollerskate 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because she's actually on the Oldest people list. We can revisit when/if she drops off. ColourBurst 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If being the 7th oldest person in the world (a claim which I see no verification or sources for, by the way) is her claim to fame, then she has no claim to fame. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records, and even Guinness doesn't list people who come in seventh place. wikipediatrix 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some subjects lend themselves to list-making. For example, longest river, highest mountain, tallest tree. I'll bet no one would delete an article on seventh-tallest skyscraper! Others, such as largest bagel ever made, are not really that important. Also, you're wrong, as Guinness lists Edna in the 2007 edition (they did a 'top 15 oldest living people' chart).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in April; it is now October. Two people have died since then.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 09:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link didn't work when I tried it last night; it's working now. Okay, so now the question is, why is coming in 9th at anything good enough reason to give someone an article? wikipediatrix 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NOT a mirror of the Guinness book, and WP:NOT a collection of trivia. Once she dies, will "she was once the seventh-oldest known living person" enough to get past the WP:BIO guidelines? Heck no. Other than one soft-news newspaper article, what evidence is there to show she's notable while alive? Will she be remembered, or will people care who was seventh-oldest at one time, in a hundred years? The "hundred year test" isn't a core policy but it's a useful guideline. Barno 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pathetic that, while real facts like these get attacked, fiction such as 'Sunnydale, CA' (or even a local high school) get played up. There are thousands of high schools, yet you are attacking the 'oldest person in Indiana' and 'seventh-oldest in the world.' Speaking of the 100-year test: try again. This woman is 113 years old. Was she remembered in a 113 years? The answer is yes. Do you realize how long ago '1893' was? Why don't you take a look at the '1893' link and do some reading. Ever heard of Frederick Jackson Turner?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 09:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's a solid reference that she's the oldest woman in Indiana. That counts as notable. --NovaSTL 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A verified 113-year-old is far more rare than an actor or rock musician, or even a ML baseball player. The oldest verified person in the UK is a mere 111 right now. Edna exceeds anyone in Western Europe. She is in the 2007 Guinness Book.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 09:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As per RYoung. Extremely sexy 10:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let's not forget that Edna is also a moving target; her world ranking could further improve the longer she lives. But, I find it repulsive and anti-American when people continue attacking USA supercentenarian articles (i.e. Florence Homan of Ohio was the prior battle) when those for the Brits involve people years younger (i.e. mere 110 and 111-year-olds, such as Florence Reeves). Currently the USA has the world's largest supercentenarian population (and overall, is to reach 300 million next week). With more than five times the population of the UK, expecting number equivalency is simply anti-U.S. bias.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:18, 15 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 Seems now everyone is in agreement, including the nominator so keep. Glen 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

524 East 72nd Street

[edit]

Outside of the October 11 plane crash, this building has no claim to fame. Thus, all the content existent in this article exists in the article for the plane crash. The building itself is not important enough to have its own article. -- tariqabjotu 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Evil Monkey. We do not document every apartment building, and this one is only notable as the site of a plane crash that, lo and behold, has its own article that already includes all the content about this building. AFD was not necessary to resolve this edit war caused by Aaron with at least three others (including myself), all of whom he smeared as vandals. Postdlf 21:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Belaire Apartments per RaccoonFox and Amaas120. --Aaron 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote, see below.[reply]

*Redirect to October 11 plane crash per above comments. This deserves its own article no more than the field which a plane crashed into on 9/11, or the buildings around the World Trade Center that were destroyed by the collapse. -Amarkov babble 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to October 11 plane crash - The incident is notable, but the building is not. I checked to see if it was included in the 1000-page American Institute of Architects Guide to NYC, and it's not. --Aude (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.It doesn't have any claim to fame other than that- but it should have the article due to the plane crash. However, more info is needed about the building itsef, as this is an article abour the BUILDING, not the crash. The crash should have a section, and other info about the building should also be added. I was looking fore more info about the building after the crash, but I couldn't find anything otherwise. -- Reportell
  • It shouldn't have an article just because of the plane crash. The notability of an incident is not automatically transferred to the place where it occurred. The fact that you can't find any info about it that isn't related to the plane crash is even more of a reason to merge/redirect. -Amarkov babble 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corey Lidle is not nearly as notable as JFK. Regardless, the Texas Book Depository didn't automatically become notable after JFK was shot there. It did indeed become notable because of that incident, but in a couple months, I doubt anybody will remember "Hey, there was a plane crash at 524 East 72nd street!". They'll just remember that there was a plane crash. Things may become notable because of an incident, but notability of the incident is not automatically transferred. -Amarkov babble 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, and i agree with you. However, I think Yankees fans may remember this for quite a while longer than most other people. I do know that this isn't Yankeepedia, but perhaps we should at least delay deleting this until collective social memory of this starts to fade (say, after a few months)? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 00:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why erase history. Isn't history ment to be remembered, not forgotten? --71.200.61.10 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles on buildings in Manhattan. --Tothebarricades 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, all U.S. towns and census-designated places (however small) have articles, and high schools are generally deemed notable. There would be articles on both Shanksville and Columbine anyway. As for this building, I would have voted keep if it was listed in my AIA Guide (which includes 5000+ NYC buildings, including many in the immediate neighborhood of this apt building). I was looking to it as a source, but found nothing on this building to be able to expand the article. I also looked through the NY Times archives (pre-today) and found next to nothing (only real estate sales and such). --Aude (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buildings are notable on size now? In that case, there's this hotel over in San Jose. Nobody who doesn't live near here or has stayed in it has EVER heard of the building, but it's a solid 35 stories high, and has 2 pools, and 2 tennis courts. Think it's notable? -Amarkov babble 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well geese sorry for having an opinion, but I just went back and read the article, its a hospital too. Besides it's 50 freakin Stories, in my world that is pretty noteable considering the tallest building in Western Canada is the Petro-Canada Centre and that is barely taller then that. --Cloveious 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50 stories is about medium for a New York City skyrise. Besides, a building is not notable simply for being big, nor is it for being a hospital. And a sucession of non-notable things does not add up to something notable. -Amarkov babble 04:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if you belive that why don't you go through List of Towers, and List of hospitals and start afd'ing everything --Cloveious 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the hospitals do not get their own articles. And for the towers, the ones that are famous in connection to a famous event actually ARE famous. If you refer to the 524 East 72nd street crash a couple months from now, or even right now, people will say "Um... what the hell are you talking about?" On the contrary, if you mentioned, say, the Texas School Book Depository, people would know that is where JFK was killed. -Amarkov babble 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Snap, your questionable logic has failed! Hospitals have there own articles, Foothills Medical Centre, Brampton Memorial Hospital Campus, Georgetown Hospital, St. Peter's Hospital, Hamilton to name a few, and if you look at List of Towers you can find lots that are far more questionable then this. But what do I know I totally think that Altar candlestick and Altar candle should totally be merged are not noteable, but what do I care Wikipedia is a riot of free opinion and interest and if you want to mock my choice of a keep vote cram it and keep it to yourself. --Cloveious 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be obvious, but telling people to shut up and just accept your opinion is kinda frowned upon. And for what it's worth, none of the articles you mentioned consist solely of structural information. -Amarkov babble 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable enough for Redirect There are thousands of buildings in NYC more notable that this one and that are nor in WP. You might want to research and write entries on those. The rule is: if most of what is notable about this building is contained in the accident entry, a Redirect is right way to acknoledge its notability.--Gkklein 17:23, 13 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

[edit]

This article brings no more new information than the Zhvill (Hasidic dynasty) page or the Yitzhak Aharon Korff page. Meshulam 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my vote per the discussion below. Em-jay-es 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added this article because I couldn't find one at all on wikipedia on Medziboz. All of Hasidus started with the Baal Shem Tov in Medziboz. I was looking to get in touch with the current Medziboz Rebbe and couldn't find it until I indirectly got to Zhvil, so I thought there should at least be some link and background on the Baal Shem Tov connecting this lineage. That information, and some of the rest which I added, is not found anywhere else in wikipedia. I do not think this should be deleted. --ChosidFrumBirth 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Here is what I have written to Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.)IZAK 10:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is too much overlap with other articles, the merge process should be used. Deletion is for material that has no business being in Wikipedia in the first place. Even the nominator is not saying that.--agr 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No Reason to delete.--Irishpunktom\talk 10:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep no reason to delete has been advanced - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it qualifies for a "Speedy" keep; "Strong" may be more appropriate -- Avi 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is what I meant. The nominator has not advanced a rationale for deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like merging the articles has become the best option. I will explain my only objection: Mezibuz (or, as we have spelled it here Medzhibozh) is a city that is significant to every Chassidic sect. By making an article identifying Mezibuz with one specific dynasty, to the exception of othes, is a problem. This is similar to what would happen if I decided that I was the King of Camelot, and had one of my 2 followers write a wikipedia article amending the Camelot page that read "after that while Lancelot thing, Meshulam became King of Camelot." Ignoring the accuracy of the claim (that is, assuming that the Zhviller Rebbe of Boston is also the Mezibuz Rebbe, and that this claim is not fraught with error), the claim is misleading. Mezibuz has a rich history that has nothing to do with a specific dynasty that was established in Boston. I feel that linking the Medzhibozh article to the Zhvill article gives too much importance to a figure who is essentially a lightweight in the Jewish world. --Meshulam 19:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is . I don't agree with Meshulam one bit. It's not Rabbi Korff's fault that he is a direct descendant of the Baal Shem Tov and that his grandfather, great grandfather, etc., etc. inherited the Baal Shem Tov's home and shul, but that does make him different from the other offshoots. Meshulam says Mezibuz has a rich history that has nothing to do with a specific dynasty -- so does Boston, so do many other places, but that doesn't preclude a dynasty that began there.

Neither is it relevant that other dynasties have roots in Mezbuz, simply because the Baal Shem Tov was from there. There is a distinct line and separate dynasty here. Ignoring Meshulam's sarcasm, which is inappropriate if we are really looking for the truth here, Rabbi Korff did not unilaterally decide to become King of Camelot. The fact is that, unlike all the other dynasties and rebbes Meshulam would merge, his grandfather was actually born in Mezbuz, in the Baal Shem Tov's house, to a father who was the Mezbuz Rebbe and who inherited that house and title from his father, and he from his father, and back to Reb Boruch, the Baal Shem Tov's grandson. That is recognized and acknowledged by ALL the other Rebbes that I know of, including the Boyaner, Zviller, Skverer, Chernobyler, Foltichaner, Skolyer, etc., etc. who joined the late Talner Rebbe in strongly encouraging Rabbi Korff to become Rebbe and fill his grandfather's place, who view him as a major figure not a "lightweight", and who are obviously in a much better position to know and judge than Meshulam is, and it makes the Mezbuz Hasidic dynasty distinct. Meshulam's comments are insulting and show a bias and personal opinion. I don't know what happened between him and the Rebbe, or what he has against him, but this is just not acceptable and not a credit to wikipedia. --ChosidFrumBirth 20:25, 12 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 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color tabs

[edit]

"Phony" soap-opera invented by students and enacted in class. --Nehwyn 21:31, 11 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 a7, g1, g11. NawlinWiki 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saliek aka Semi Auto

[edit]

Vanity, non-notable - no google hits even. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 11 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Blue Clothing Company

[edit]

Contested prod of a California clothing store. With the recent office request to be wary against articles on commercial ventures, I believe this could stand some wider discussion. Abstain myself. >Radiant< 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible Keep. Why on Earth would you nominate for deletion an article for a company that has 200 stores in the U.S., and shows proper references establishing its notability? There are pizza restaurant chains with less than a dozen stores that have easily passed AfD with far less going for them. wikipediatrix 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, like I said above, with the recent office request to be wary against articles on commercial ventures, this could stand some wider discussion. Note that I said 'abstain' earlier. >Radiant< 08:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this recent office request you keep invoking? Can you provide a link? wikipediatrix 12:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the email list. Here's a direct link to the conversation through the web interface: [81]. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per wikipediatrix, I wondered the same thing. Just so we compare apples to apples, the clothing retailer Designer Depot has less than 10 stores, the artlce cites absolutely no references or sources and I find no "cultural phenomenon" aspect to it. I sometimes get the feeling people make afd nominations just because they personally never heard of the subject, which I thought was the whole point of having articles; to educate them on something notable they've never heard of. --Marriedtofilm 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strictly speaking, the "X article exists, therefore Y article should be kept" argument doesn't work because at any one time there are many articles at Wikipedia that properly shouldn't be. It gets a little stronger when an article that has clearly been kept after scrutiny is compared, but even then the Criticisms section of the Wikipedia:Pokémon test make it less than ironclad when it comes to community acceptance. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify, that comment was about how such a small retailer that had an article for more than 11 months never had that scrutiny, and yet this 200+ store chain gets pounded on within days of its creation. --Marriedtofilm 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough then. On the point about unequal scrutiny, Wikipedia is large and it's not uncommon for large discrepancies like that to happen. Theoretically it evens out in the "end". — Saxifrage ✎ 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 200 locations. Gazpacho 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently, the WP:CORP standard is not satisfied, as only 2 of the 4 references cited in the article are about Anchor Blue (#2 and #3 are about a parent corporation, and Anchor Blue is only mentioned in one sentence). Of the two that are about the subject of this article, the first seems fairly trivial, so that leaves only one article of substance. Valrith 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are actually 3 references listed that are primarily about Anchor Blue. Ah yes, there is 2. 3 additional references added, all primarily about Anchor Blue bringing the amount articles about AB to 5. This is more than normal for such a small stub and easily following WP:CORP guidlines. The trivial opinion of the St. Petersberg Times source is POV. --Marriedtofilm 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Wikipediatrix/Marriedtofilm. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Safely over the bar. Deizio talk 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As much as I've never heard of it outside this article, it passes WP:CORP and that's what matters. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Radiant's concerns about this article, and that a wider discussion was wise. It does appear to be sufficiently notable though. --Elonka 03:42, 13 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Russell (Florida politician)

[edit]

should be deleted as he is a candidate, not an elected official DesertSky85451 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to the original article to try to bring it up to snuff. Obviously a bad article isn't any good, but that has nothing to do with the subject's notability.--Francisx 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Changing to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article is poor, it needs to be beefed up, not deleted. He was certainly notable enough to win a primary election, and thus is a major party candidate for the US House. Perhaps the info would be better suited in an article on the election itself, but, until such time there is one, this article ought to be kept. -- Sholom 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A massive 29 Google News hits on "John Russell" Florida; all local press, no nationwide media coverage; local news coverage indicate it's not a close race[83], not competitive, and not among even the 50 most closely watched [84] races nationwide; Yahoo returns his own site, local press, and other John Russell's; and tying notability to the Mark Foley scandal via the opposing candidate is a stretch. Does not satisfy any WP:BIO criteria for notability. Sandy 15:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: No one seems to be listing this race as competitive, and the campaign website seems to have nothing biographical about the candidate. So building this article into a semi-objective one seems far-fetched. I don't think the article is useful as is, and it seems unlikely to ever be. Keep: I didn't realize that Russell's opponent had learned about some of Mark Foley's behavior and failed to act on that. That changes the complexion of the race. John Broughton | Talk 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It is a violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to be deleting the bios of major party US Congressional nominees less than 30 days before a General Election. Delete after the election if no assertion of notability follows.Francisx 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically what part of WP:NPOV are you basing this position on? wikipediatrix 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it violates the spirit of WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to feature one major party candidate for election and not another. In this instance, it reflects a pro-incumbent POV by default. Moreover, deleting a candidate's bio less than a month before the election could have a measurable effect on the outcome. On a Google search for "John Russell Florida," the Wikipedia page comes up at the top, even ahead of the candidate's own website, and it is entirely conceivable that the general public would come to this site for NPOV biographical information on this person.--Francisx 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for your opinion on what violates the "spirit" of WP:NPOV, I'm asking you to quote specifically what part of WP:NPOV supports your statement. Wikipedia is not a news outlet that is obligated to give "equal time" to two candidates. In any encyclopedia (not just Wikipedia), there is bound to be more articles about incumbents than challengers because obviously, incumbents are inherently notable and not all challengers are. wikipediatrix 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it, obviously in my view violates the prohibition in WP:NPOV of "political bias." I'm not asking for equal sized articles or equal time in an election article for less-competitive candidates. Nor am I suggesting that they will remain notable following an election. But I think failing to mention their existence is an expression of a POV. As for notability, I think Wikipedia is especially ill-suited for judging the political notability of candidates. In the United States, each state has a notability test of its own, namely ballot listing. Additionally, major parties have primaries or caucuses to determine notability. I will bring this up in Wiki C&E, but I think ballot listing by a major party in a federal election constitutes de facto notability, even if the candidate is not otherwise notable.--Francisx 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who made the nomination, I'd like to point out that I'm a Democrat. DesertSky85451 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning anybody's good faith here and even though I'm also a Democrat, I'd like to think I'd make the same objection were a Republican's bio on the line. I just think this is a bad road to go down, with WP members deciding by a vote a candidate's viability. WP:Bio as I read it has a significantly less strict bar for notability than the State of Florida has in determining who gets to sit on their ballot.--Francisx 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be clear, this isn't a bias for incumbents, it is a "bias" for people who are have been in office as opposed to people who have not. JoshuaZ 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the same thing? Dwight Eisenhower might not have gotten his own wikipedia article in 1952, had Wikipedia existed then, since he never held elective office before running for President. Bias for people who have been elected is still bias, and it still inappropriately favors incumbents -- people who already benefit from enhanced name rec. In fact, I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are little-known. WP doesn't exist to level the playing field, but it does exist to provide a valuable source of NPOV information that would not otherwise be available to readers.--Francisx 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read Eisenhower's article?? He was notable BEFORE he ran for President. He was Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII, and headed NATO in 1949. To say that "I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are little-known" is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nobody "deserves" an article for being little-known! wikipediatrix 11:51, 14 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 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cord of Three Strands

[edit]

Not notable and possibly vanity. Cord of Three Strands is a reference to a biblical verse used in many Christian contexts, this article is about a particular use in the context of marriage ceremonies. From Google searches use in this context appears to be minor and localized. Also author of article is User:Welbesw, external web site cited on page is authored by Will and Mandi Welbes. Prod removed without comment. Siobhan Hansa 23:08, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Evans

[edit]

No attempt at notability. Was properly speedied, then unspeedied without bothering to bring it to AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 11 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 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Crisis

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place for Ape Escape Mega Man Battle Network crossover fanfiction. Strong delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? Where's that policy written down? Gazpacho
I think it's implicit in WP:DUMB. — Haeleth Talk 11:18, 12 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 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Dark-Key

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place for Ape Escape fanfiction. Strong delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 11 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 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend Of Keptra

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place for Ape Escape fanfiction. Strong delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:38, 11 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.
  1. ^ WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_11&oldid=1234118966"