Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 18

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Black billionaires

This article is problematic on many levels. If it was named "List of Black billionaires according to Forbes" it would be fine, except then it would then be a copyvio. As it is now this article is merely a speculative essay. The criteria for inclusion is ambiguous (do mulatto and blasian people qualify? What about black Papua New Guineans and Australian Aborigines?). The very issue of being black cannot be agreed upon, as you can see in the article's edit history and talk page, as well as at Talk:African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion and Talk:Black people. Someone renamed the article "African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion", but that was refuted. "Black people of African Ancestry whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion" would probably be refuted as well. As there are barely a handful billionaires who are black (Oprah Winfrey being the only current one), the article has to be padded with essayic speculation (as is the case now). I say delete this article and mention that they are black (if it is important) in Lists of billionaires. Ezeu 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I withdraw nomination to delete and endorse suggestion to rename the article to a more proper name (per HalJor) given its current content. --Ezeu 23:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note to the closing admin, Black billionaire was renamed to Black billionaires. Originally it was the other way round. --Ezeu 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per it being kept during the first nomination which was less than a week ago! WilyD 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The last AfD was three months ago, not less than a week ago. --Ezeu 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, then this is at least the third nomination. I stumbled into this article through an AfD last week. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BLACK_BILLIONAIRESWilyD 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It was PRODed last week, not AfDed.--Ezeu 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You may find the evidence I've presented that it was AfD'd convincing. WilyD 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That was barely an AfD. The nomination was withdrawn, and the AfD was closed after an hour. --Ezeu 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did make my points before digging it up - what I did recall was stumbling across the article through AfD. WilyD 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Recent 1st nomination or not, there is only one universally agreed-upon black billionaire and the article title is extremely vague. StarryEyes 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that it's a well sourced encyclopaedic article, can you make your argument for deletion clearer? WilyD 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I made it perfectly clear that I'm just echoing and summarizing the nominator's points. Copying and pasting his argument would be unwieldy. StarryEyes 01:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is not well sourced. Most of the so called sources do not verify the information in the article. The source cited for the claims about Mobutu and Sani Abacha are from a Yahoo chat. --Ezeu 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - yes it's from Yahoo chat, but the author of the comment is identified as one of the reporters on the Forbes billionaire report, so it's pretty authoritative. Blowski 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that we have to keep this. It's interesting and useful information. There are problems with the article, to be sure, but none of them should make one think that deleting the article is the solution. - Richardcavell 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The definition of black is ambiguous, and so is the definition of billionare. I coudl go on, but the nominator was pretty convincing. Rangek 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I agree that the article has many problem on many levels. But I would say that the one that are most troubling to me is the "focus splitting". Is the article attempting to be a list of billionaires or is the article attempting to define "What is Black"? After the first paragraph, it splits into discussion about what is considered black that is really unneccesary. 205.157.110.11 07:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is still a work in progress and wouldn't qualify for featured article status. WilyD 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. LoomisSimmons 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. To refute the 3 main arguments:
  • Arguments over "who is black" are not a valid reason to delete this article, or else we would have none of the dozens of other articles on race. Yes, race is controversial, but Wikipedia is not censored. To the contrary, it should bend over backwards to stay honest and objective.
  • Ezeu also misunderstands copyright law. Under Feist v. Rural (which has since been adopted by Europe, too), lists cannot be copywritten, so the fact that this list might be "according to Forbes" does not make it copyvio. If that were the case, we'd have to delete Fortune 500 and dozens of articles like it, too.
  • The fact that "there are barely a handful billionaires who are black" doesn't matter. We have thousands of articles that are about one or only a few people. The question isn't how many people fit into the category, but is it notable that they have made it? Yes, acheiving billionaire status is a sign of notability, and it's especially notable for blacks because they were all but shut out of the international economy until 40 years ago because of Jim Crow laws, apartheid, and the like.
  • --M@rēino 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete

The article says nothing. That and I'm tired of the damn race argument. DELETE, DELETE!!!! Everyone knows that in America particularly race matters. In this article it matters even more because the assertion that is being made and has been made overtly is that blacks are incapable of being billionaires and BEING BLACK. That the real racism behind adding that piece.

Most of you on here: Let's look at all the components of a person! Especially if he or she is "black"! They must have some other genes that account for their achievement. All or most so called African Americans or Africans in the Americas have other genes the majority Caucasian genes. So let's follow your ignorant argument that Asians and Caucasians are closest on the tree. That would mean by proxy, as a result of slavery most African American (who have been removed from African for damn near three centuries!) are the FURTHEST thing from African possible, and closer to Asians that you think. That is what makes that chart UNAPPLICABLE!

It does not take into account the mixtures that have happened as a result of chattel slavery and generations of Afro-European mixtures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:208.49.22.2 (talk • contribs)

You're not making any sense. African-Americans are on average 83% African and 17% Caucasian. They are Black because Black is the single largest chunk of their gene pool. No person on Earth is 100% pure so race is defined by the single largest chunck of ones ancestry. It's been pointed out that Michael Lee-Chin is 45% Black, 5% white and 50% Chinese so he's not predominantly Black, and any doctor that gave him medical treatment intented for Blacks would be fired especially since the Chinese gene-pool is the opposite of the Black gene-pool--Whatdoyou 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If you delete this articel than you should delete the article on Black people too since that has the same problems. The only dispute in the article concerns Michael Lee-Chin and all we need to do is show so both the sides of the debate about whether or not he's Black. Also this article was nominated for months in the early stage and survived every time. You're not even allowed to be nominating it again. That's considered harassment--Whatdoyou 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

---

• Delete I'm tired of the blasian/black thing, I'm tired of it having to be according to Forbes. Blasian. What crap. This article has become a referendum on race and its sickening. Truly. That and the moron who says let's let a white man (Forbes) define who and what black is...!! I love that one...--max1975 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You already voted once as User:208.49.22.2, you're not allowed to vote twice.--Whatdoyou 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete TJ Spyke 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete

Ezeu is right. Even though it may be argued that he's wrong about the copy vio (which I don't believe he is!), he is correct in pointing out that unless the definition for black is clarified this becomes a redundant exercise. This is becoming a referendum on what it means to be a billionaire if you have African blood coursing through your veins. The other question arises then at the same point as to who is right in their definition. Mareino if Oprah is the only person who will be counted contextually then folks can learn about her IN HER article. What's the point in saying, "geez we'd count Michael Lee-Chin but he's a unique racial category of genetic opposites." Oddly enough we have barely mentioned Bob Johnson in this article except to say in a cursory sense that he was a billionaire, but he lost that status post-divorce from Sheila.

If the argument about Jim Crow laws and one-drop rules are going to be pointed out then it needs to be noted that "black" comes in all "nationalities" if you will. It isn't much of an achievement to point out how much ground blacks have lost as they strive to be anything but black in America.

The caveat here is that there aren't that many arguments on what it means to be white and who's counted unless the KKK or other white supremacists are doing it. Moreover, I’d think we’d all agree if you don’t look white you’re not.

Question for all though: isn’t this blasian thing a phenomenon of new world intermarriage? Do the Chinese or Japanese government have a racial category for this? From what I hear the mixed children of GI’s (first true “blasians”) were treated like crap in Vietnam (which is funny as hell in brown ass Vietnam) and Korea. I even here the purer “Asians” (the Chinese and Japanese) look down on the more mixed Asian populations such as exist in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. Meanwhile, “black” people have opened their arms wide to welcome these downtrodden only to hear that they’d like to separate themselves.

Based on these factors I vote DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.196.2 (talk • contribs)

Black was defined in the article but Ezeu complained that the defenition was racist. A Black is a person with a majority of ancestors that stayed in sub-Saharan Africa during Homo S. Sapians original exodus from the continent some 70,000 years ago. No person on Earth is pure, everyone has mixed blood to some degree that's why doctors define your race by predominance of ancestry. If most of your ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa you're Black, if most are from North-East Asia, your North-East Asian etc. It's not very complecated at all. And btw, the mixed children of GI's were not the first Blasians. Believe it or not, the first Blasians were pure white people. Yes, white people. This was stated in Time magazine and by Cavalli-Sforza who discovered that on the genetic level, all Europeans are hybrid population that is a mix of African genes and North East Asian genes. This is because all humans started in Africa, and Europeans are nothing more than Africans who are in the process of becoming North East Asian. So really by calling a Blasian Black you are calling all white people Black.--Whatdoyou 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — per Richard and M@reino. Dionyseus 05:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and possibly move to a better name. The article as I'm looking at it now[1] seems perfectly fine. It has a short intro,

   * 1 Membership
   * 2 Current trends
   * 3 Blacks make history among self-made women millionaires & billionaires
   * 4 First Black Billion dollar business
   * 5 References
   * 6 See also

which are all perfectly fine. Some work may need to be done to make racial terms more generally acceptable (i.e. Blasian, I've never heard that before in my life), the article and the contents are good: no violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:V. --Daniel Olsen 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the article has been referenced and content is mainly verifiable, maybe it can be moved to African billionaires. It will help solve the issue. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Mr. Ong help solve the issue. I am fed up with the nescient logic that permeates this article. I hope you will contribute to remove the speculative rubbish, and make the artice more encyclopedic. --Ezeu 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but move some of the content to another article called Billionaires by ethnic origin. Some of the information is necessary and relevant, but on its own, has too much POV. The sources seem pretty reliable, but to make it a worthwhile article, they need to be compared to other ethnic origins. Blowski 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think comparing races with one another could create conflict especially since some races are much richer than others.--Whatdoyou 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Some sort of agenda-pushing is going on here. Let's just treat people as individuals please. Wimstead 11:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then get rid of ALL articles about race; don't start with this one.--Whatdoyou 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, The article has serious problems, and should be expanded with better references, but overall, I see no problem with it. However, that being said, if we are discussing descendants of primarily African origin, there are likely dozens of African royal families and dictators who would qualify as billionaires through history. Citations for those would be another matter entirely.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.28.20.183 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
• Comment, no opinion at this time... but if kept, move it to a less ridiculous namespace that doesn't come off like it was written by Captain Obvious...--Isotope23 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, i agree with Isotope23 about the namespace, but besides that, the only specific information is about trends and the chart of membership. staying away from the race issue (which could be easily fixed and doesn't require deletion), a majority of the info is about Oprah and Bob Johnson. If someone wanted this info they could just search for "african-american billionaire" and probably find the respective articles. -Zappernapper 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Oprah is the only black billionaire and has been for several years, this article may as well redirect to her. Cos otherwise it's just kinda dumb. Dev920 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not Wikinews - History is one of the things that's an encyclopaedic topic - deleting the article on "Well, the situation today is that there's only one or two black billionaires" is just as silly as saying "Well, Ted Williams doesn't currently play baseball, so we might as well delete his article". WilyD 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep — Is this not the same article that was just kept via an AfD? (C.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black billionaires, which redirects to the above.) — RJH (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is third time the article has been nominated for deletion, despite the fact that it passed after several months of inspection when it was only a stub with a couple of sentences. Since then a useful chart has been added and historical parrallels with CJ Walker. Isn' there some rule about not nominating an article for deltion more than once.--Whatdoyou 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but generally if an article's been nominated a few times, it's kind of pointless, and very unlikely to be deleted - see the AfD history of Gay Niggers Association of America though, for how persistant people can be. WilyD 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment, it appears the last AfD was on a duplication of this article at the namespace Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLACK BILLIONAIRES and that nomination was withdrawn. The last time this article underwent a full AfD was 3 months ago, where it was kept. I'm somewhat surprised nobody brought up the fact that for all the sourcing, this is just a 2 person list in the first AfD.--Isotope23 08:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are so few people on the list is a strength of the article not a weakness. Black billionaires are extremely rare and thus note worthy. Besides, the list will obviously expand as the years go by. This article is a treasure trove of useful information for students of Black history and Black business. I wish someone had bothered to keep track of all the earliest black millionaires--Whatdoyou 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for all the sourcing, this is still a list of 2 people rife with speculation and I see very little WP:V information out there that indicates potential for expansion. Some of the sourced economic data might be useful elsewhere, but overall, at best this could just redirect to Oprah Winfrey.--Isotope23 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful article -- though the statistics chosen are a bit odd/wrongheaded. (How about the percentage of blacks with bachelor's and master's degrees?) Could use some work copy edit-wise, too. deeceevoice 12:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The statistic are of interest because money is so universally valued and so it's of interest to see the number of Black billionaires since this is an extremely tiny club of historical significance slowly making their presence felt on the global stage. By contrast Blacks with masters degrees are a dime a dozen.--Whatdoyou 19:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to say how impressed I am with the effort to improve this article. Even editors who drove me absolutely nuts at first like Whatdoyou have made some very positive contributions. This is a totally different article from when this all started. --M@rēino 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's worth noting the article is far better now than it was when it was first nominated. WilyD 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Recreate - If this article were only about billionaires who happen to be black (however you want to define that), it would be fine although the article title should be plural. However, most of the article is about other things: poverty rates, women, racism, rumors, claims, businesses, and people who aren't even on the list yet -- a list which currently has only one person on it. This effort would be better directed as something like Economic Advancement of Black People. Calling it "Billionaires" is too limiting for what the article is trying to achieve. HalJor 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, move? That doesn't require an AfD - why not come discuss that on the talk page? WilyD 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Good idea. A general rewrite might be in order, but I think the article needs a better focus first. I raised the idea on the Talk page as you suggested. (I don't know nearly enough about the topic to take ownership.) HalJor 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with WilyD. "Delete and recreate" really isn't an option. Jimbo has come out very strongly against deleting page history, which is all that you would be doing if you recreate the article. Don't worry about taking ownership or knowledge -- Wikipedia's not about what you know, but about what you can verify, so as long as you're a good researcher, you're welcome to contribute to Black billionaire or any other article. --M@rēino 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that be Keep per nom if you read the nomination? WilyD 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Its good information. Their is nothing racist about this. We are not disputing facts but more less emotional outbursts of people with low self esttem.

• Delete. Not racist or problematic, really, but do we really need an article on this subject? What can we say? "Some billionaires are black. They're called People who are of African American, Blaisan, Papua New Guinea, Aboriginal Australian or Mulatto descent whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion United States Dollars. Here's a list of them." What else? Okay, just kidding, maybe, but you get my drift. Kind of. VolatileChemical 08:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'll read the article, you'll discover there's actually a wealth of information on the subject. WilyD 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all we're not talking about Australoids and Papua New Guineans though including them wouldn't matter since they haven't produced any billionaires. Black when spelled with a capital B refers to people of sub-Saharan ancestry. This topic is extremely important because most people I speak to do not believe that Black billionaires are even possible, so it's very important to document all the billionaires and near-billionaires in history that were Black or have had Black blood, it's important to document the economic contributions made by people with sub-Saharan ancestry. It's also extremely important to point out the economic inequality exists even at the highest levels. Black billionaires are extremely note-worthy because virtually every Black population on Earth has been either enslaved or colonized, so to come out of that to become a billionaire is worthy of extensive documentation. If we can have articles on subjects like controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians we can most certainly have an article on Black billionaires. Just because the information is not of use to you does not mean it can't be a helpful resource for others especially those studying Black business and Black history. It's extremely difficult to get information and statisistics concerning Blacks worldwide as most stats are confined to African-Americans. Thats what makes this article unique.--Whatdoyou 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete This should be a category, not an article. Mallanox 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A category with only one person in it? That doesn't make much sense. An article is much more useful because there are a couple billionaires of mixed blood in addition to a former Black billionaire, a self-proclaimed Black Billionaires, Blacks half-way to becoming billionaires, & Black dominated industries forcasting billionaires.--Whatdoyou 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Mukadderat 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Boxers

The page is very very stubby, not linked anywhere, and appears to be pointless. If "Amateur boxer" is an official class in a notable boxing league the article should be changed to reflect that, but save that (or an actual organization called "Amateur Boxers") this article is just a dictionary definition combining the words "Amateur" and "Boxer". Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and Delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Boxing. The nominator's reference to "notable boxing league" suggests that he is completely ignorant about the organisation of boxing. Amateur boxing is one of the main sports at the Olympics and one of the largest amateur sports in the world! It is different from professional boxing in many ways, almost to the point of being a separate sport (arguably as much as rugby league and rugby union are separate sports). The coverage of amateur boxing in the main articles is inadequate at present, and ideally there should be a separate article at amateur boxing, which currently redirects to Boxing. Metthurst 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't insult me for no reason. I understand what and how important Amateur Boxing is, I was just saying it's not out of the realm of possibilities that there is a league named "Amateur Boxers". Please don't insult folks off the cuff like that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Not enough info to merit an article. The info might have a place in Boxing. Heimstern Läufer 05:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Weblog Awards

Fails WP:WEB; from all I can find it's an award site that's still relatively new and lacks sources. None of the winners seem to meet the notability criteria either. Crystallina 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. The site in question has No Alexa rank, which is unusual indeed for something blog-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — per above. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. will381796 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blog-cruft. 205.157.110.11 06:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as starblind S-K-K 09:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —dima ^/talk/ 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like something trying to up it's pagerank on google, therefore advertising, etc... Logical2u 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Heimstern Läufer 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Blake's 7 Real Person Fic

We've already deleted this article's twin brother back in July (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake's 7 Fan Fiction). This one is, if anything, even more nonsensical. Also unverifiable, unencylopedic, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete garbage. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — I imagine this fails WP:WEB. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and reasoning in related articles AfD. 205.157.110.11 06:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Travislangley 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —dima ^/talk/ 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Frankly, talking about a fanfiction creating an likely unnotable fad on a likely unnotable community is just a double whammy. I propose we call this the Totally Imaginary Article. Logical2u 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And I'm involved in the Blake's 7 fan community. While the zines mentioned here do exist, there's nothing about them that's notable outside the B7 community. Espresso Addict 03:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Balistiq (producers)

They seem to fail WP:MUSIC at the moment; their most notable collaboration according to the article, although initially seeming promising, is "forthcoming" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crystallina 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom will381796 06:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also for vanity. Anything directing you to their myspace page is a redflag. 205.157.110.11 06:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and 205.157.110.11. Paddles ^T_C 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Heimstern Läufer 06:00, 23 August 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 redirected. --SB | T 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nawroz

We already have a Kurdish celebration of Newroz and a Norouz which shouldnt even be seperate... We do not need a 3^rd article. Cat out 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a copy of another article which hapens to be Norouz --Cat out 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Norouz, what little added detail is in the newer article should be salvaged. User:Pedant 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect - just redirect to Norouz, which it is a direct copy from. No need to bring it to Afd in my opinion. -- Jeff3000 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just did a diff, the user who created the page just removed the trivia section, and put re-ordered the list of countries to start with the Kurds, and changed the etymology of the word.

This discussion of seperating out the Kurdish festival was decided by consensus in March. See Talk:Norouz#Peace_settlement and Talk:Newroz which led to the current organization of the page and the creation of Kurdish celebration of Newroz. -- Jeff3000 00:52, 18 August 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 keep. --james^(talk) 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Annihilator (truck)

This article does not give any reason why this truck is notable. In fact if I had not stumbled upon this article, I would have never even known what the bloody hell a "monster truck" is. Allow me to reproduce the entire article, save for the links and uselss little side box, here: Annihilator is a monster truck that races on the USHRA circuit. Displaced Brit 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I guess. Normally I'd say to merge with Martial Law (truck) [which is its current name] but we don't seem to have such an article at the moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I hate to think of it as a sport, it could be argued that "monster-trucking," similar to NASCAR, is a sport. This seems to be a truck competing at the highest national level. I would apply the same criteria to this as an athlete WP:BIO will381796 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Unfortunately, they're right. As long as USHRA is notable enough to be considered a sport, then the Annihilator is just as notable as Kenny Wallace. 205.157.110.11 06:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I see three keep noms which claim (or even make no claim) notability of this truck. Only will381796 gives any policy/guideline reference for the keep nom, and, even there, no indication is given of how the truck meets WP:BIO. Cursory research shows only 56 unique hits for annihilator +ushra, and none of those are multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, which would be needed to meet WP:BIO. Whether or not the USHRA is considered a sport is not a factor in WP:NOT, and the low number of Ghits certainly reflects as to the lack of notability. I'm wondering if the keep-noms have any other policy considerations to guide other editors? Tychocat 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment As I am pretty new to wikipedia, from what I've seen regarding WP:BIO as applied to an athlete, if they play at the highest national level and are verifiable, which this "Monster Truck" appears to do, then they tend to be included. I would hate to apply this guideline to the actual driver of the truck, simply because from my very little experience with the "sport," I don't think that anyone actually cares who drives the trucks, such as long as crap gets smashed. So, assuming that it is the truck and not the driver that is considered to be the competitor in the sport, it seems that WP:BIO can be applied, at least in regards to an athlete. will381796 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above discussion of how WP:BIO applies. Monster truck races are broadcast nationally on cable TV and have been for decades, the top competitors are notable and should have a page on wikipedia. Amazinglarry 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep monster trucks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. For the record, Annihilator is another truck which I have not gotten around to yet, the truck has a long history dating back to Krimson Krusher, and was on Monster Jam several times as both Summit Truckstyle and Annihilator. The name is getting a new chassis, the old chassis is running as the aforementioned Martial Law. As usual, I will conclude with a plea for more people to help with Category:Monster trucks, most (if not all) the trucks listed there are notable, but I have not gotten around to establishing that on their pages.Arenacale 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per just about everyone. RFerreira 21:13, 21 August 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 Deleted before afd discussion officially closed

Olivia kennett

Delete. No notability. Google brings up 4 results, and none of them seems to have anything to do with the subject of the article. Previously prod'ded by User:Sparsefarce: "Non notable artist. Google search comes up with her (or another Olivia Kennett from New England) being quoted in an article about JFK, which had nothing to do with art. Also an article or two about a health instructor named Olivia Kennet. Nothing else found." ... discospinster _talk 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, probably vanity, article. Needs to be deleted as such. --WillMak050389 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have viewed one of Olivia Kennett's "art zines", which I picked up at one of my local coffee shops. Although she is certainly not well-known, I think she will be in the future. This article could easily stay put and have importance at a later date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.175.162.145 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What might be notable in the future is not what WP is about. Sparsefarce 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• do not delete kennett is a scenester gaining significance in the greater boston area. this article is relevant. i think just because she doesn't bring up any art related google results doesn't necessarily mean she is not a person of importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohguerrilla (talk • contribs) .

• It does, however, mean her importance is not Verifiable. Verifiability is an absolute rule here. Fan-1967 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless verifiable sources are listed. Truth and verifiability aren't the same thing. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not yet notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'll be notable one day, but I have resisted the temptation to create a shrine to myself. will381796 06:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

DELETE 65.175.162.145 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with no prejudice for recreation. Boston has a nice art scene and if she is truly "up and coming" then her time will come and Wikipedia will be here to note it. Till then... 205.157.110.11 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- looks like someone speedied it. --M@rēino 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Historic Wrestling Roster

WP:LC. There is no purpose for this list at all, pro wrestling cruft and most importantly, unencyclopedic. — Moe Epsilon 00:31 August 18 '06

• Delete redundant with List of professional wrestlers and its subarticles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As mamma would say "Rasling-cruft". 205.157.110.11 06:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add Historical Tag Team List to this AFD. Wildthing61476 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete each section of former wrestlers should be merged into the articles, but this list, unless more info is added (dates), should be removed. MECU≈talk 21:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and the tag team one as redundant. WWE/TNA both have pages for their rosters, and WWE/WCW/ECW all have pages for alumni. TJ Spyke 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AirPiracy

Unverifiable/non-notable. Can't find any mention online other than AirPiracy.com. Article makes no clam of notability - possible vanity article. Scott Wilson 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem to have caught on, really. After deletion, redirect to Air Pirates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — per Starblind. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without the inappropriate redirection. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though I think a better redirect for the title would be to Culture jamming. In certain metropolitan areas (especially those with urban college influences) you will see some of those stickers around. I can see someone typing in the term to find out what it's about. 205.157.110.11 06:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per 205.157.110.11. Culture jamming is probably a better fit than Air Pirates. 208.147.21.65 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I frankly don't feel that "A logo that people search for on the internet" is that notable. Do other graffitti related articles survive? It would probably, however, be appropriate to mention it briefly on Culture Jamming and redirect that page there. Logical2u 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect per nom. Seems to be a nonnotable instantiation of culture jamming. The article also contradicts its own assertion of the name and the logo never being seen together. Paddles ^T_C 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

comment I agree that is a contradiction in the article but there are stickers out there with the logo and Air Piracy underneath. unfortunately they are not in the most pleasent of areas to find for picture verification. 205.157.110.11 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment though I won't protest if this gets redirected to Culture jamming, as the article is written I don't think it actually counts as culture jamming at all, at least not by the normal definition. As our article defines it, "Culture jamming is the act of transforming existing mass media to produce negative commentary about itself, using the original medium's communication method." I don't think that simply putting up stickers with a cryptic logo is any more an example of "culture jamming" than putting up flyers for a yard sale would be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — If not to Culture jamming, this should possibly be redirected to Street art or Phenomenology, as it appears similar to the André the Giant Has a Posse campaign. 208.147.21.65 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanna B Ur Lovr

Not notable, not a single, no video. Crumbsucker 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — fails Wikipedia:Notability (songs) - Glen 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete While I respect Wierd Al for his lyrical skillz, this song is not notable. A mention on Weird Al's page should be sufficient. will381796 06:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a record store. 205.157.110.11 06:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for inability to spell --Xrblsnggt 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a Weird Al fan but this one song does not constitute notability for an article. --WillMak050389 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree should be mentioned on Weird Al article only. MECU≈talk 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; doesn't qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Heimstern Läufer 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Why are we still discussing this? Kumar 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete: Invoking the snowball clause: Wikipedia is not a memorial. ChrisO 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

This article is an inexplicable POV fork of the Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The main article sufficiently covers all the facts and figures, and a highly detailed list of the death of Israelis non-notables, while certainly a tragic fact, has no encyclopedic value. This page has not resulted of consensus nor has any type of support from major editors of the pages from it is forking.--Cerejota 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's no need to make this separate from the main article. --Wafulz 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete easily covered in main article. ReverendG 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Totally agree with Cerejota (above), the content seems more of an online-memorial page as opposed to an encyclopedia.TJ0513 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tragic, but unencyclopædic Avi 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lists of casualties serve no purpose --Musaabdulrashid 03:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. LoomisSimmons 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete list serves no purpose. No to memorial pages Rm uk 04:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant as it is. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. Iorek85 09:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Yes it's unfortunate, but then I'm picturing a page on Soviet fatalities of World War II. This is too much tactical detail for an encyclopedia. — RJH (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. See here for my previous discussion on the matter. ~ clearthought 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic--Nibblesnbits 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. A list of fatalities is notable (an article on every person killed is not). If there were enough sources, and enough editors to keep up the list I would not object to Soviet fatalities of World War II. Nor do I see how this is POV; There can just a easily be an article for fatalities of other contries. Jon513 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before: "Since we pretty much only have details on Israeli deaths, I don't know if it would be fair for us to have detailed death lists for Israel but only numbers for all other parties involved in the conflict." ~ clearthought 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is idiotic. balance does not mean equality. If there is verifable, and notable information it does not need to censored because we cannot get the same imformation for "the other side". Do we have to remove information about chess tournaments because we cannot get the same imformation about the Scrabble tournaments! Jon513 19:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all one conflict. There is no reason that we should list every Israeli death name by name if we cannot get even nearly as close in detail for deaths from other sides. On the topic of your comparison of Chess to Scrabble, that is not comparing apples to apples—in this discussion we are talking about one conflict and the parties involved, not two conflicts. Using your game comparison is like saying the World War II article should be just as long as the Gulf War article... not a fair comparison considering we are not comparing the Arab-Israeli war to this Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) conflict! If you are to call my idea "idiotic" at least come up with a good analogy. ~ clearthought 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Every single fact is separtate. Every fact should be decided for includsion based only on wheather the fact is verifable and important. Where to put that fact and how to present it should be done in a NPOV manner. If you feel that this means making a parrell article for Lebanoneze, fine. Frankly I think that the fact that it is in a sparate article, not overwhelling Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, makes it NPOV. Jon513 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The arguments/reasons others listed above says it perfectly: Wikipedia is not a "memorial", the article has "too much tactical detail" for an encyclopedia, "serves no purpose" in an encyclopedia. ~ clearthought 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Jon513 is misreading the spirit of " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". This means that we can cover more than a regular encyclopedia, are able to give more space to specific research threads, and cannot use size constraints as an excuse to not include material. It's not meant to say that we have to include ALL knowledge, because while we are not a paper encyclopedia, we are an electronic encyclopedia. Specifically, this means we are subject to certain content rules and policies. Among those rules this page goes against is the long standing one that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in particular the section against memorials. Its incredible that you attempt to use WP:NOT to support the existence of this page and ignore the specific and clear disavowal of memorial pages. It shows you don't understand WP:NOT.

There is already and excellent, well debated, and continously edited page on the casulties of the conflict, which is more than enough for all combatants, and does a great job in presenting the information, in spite of course of needing a lot of work. SO the information is being covered in great detail. Instead of going around creating irrelevant, unencyclopedic memorial pages, perhaps you should go there and contribute.

I do congratulate the creator of the page on his/her boldness, but I think this time he/she went overboard.--Cerejota 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is not a memoral page. A memoral page that WP:NOT is refering to is about a person who fails WP:BIO but we all feel really sad that s/he died; this article simply documents who died, it does not talk about their lives and acomplishment and the family they left behind. The article does not contain indiscriminate information, it expands on an already exsisting topic. A few editor have agreed that the article is notable, and should in theory be included, but since we can't do the same for lebanene we can't include it, because we don't want to offend lebanene sensabilities. PR is also a form of POV. NPOV means showing both sides of the story, not artifically removing information so they are equal in every way. Jon513 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think you vastly misinterpreted my and other editor's arguments;
2. You seem to be the only editor on this page who thinks this memorial, a group memorial (per se) mind you, should not be deleted!

~ clearthought 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I am the only one here who voted to keep. It is hard to go against a crowd and say what one believes. It would be easier just to say "delete per norm" (I wouldn't even have to read the article). Building Consensus does not mean bullying people into saying what you want him to believe. Jon513 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I do hope you are not implying that I am bullying you, because I certainly am not. I am just staing what I -- and others here -- seem to believe about this article. There is already a decent Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. ~ clearthought 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I personaly support the Iranian stance on Israel, its a illegitimate state based on terrorism and propaganda. As is evident on the current events. So much for my pov. But IN ANY CASE, this list is neither indiscriminate nor OR and verifiable. Hence, it fullfills all criteria for inclusion. Having it on the main article would unbalance it since no equivalent list exist for the other side. And yes, i would vote to keep on List of people died in wars, wikipedia is not paper. I would end this by saying a few words about the subjects of this article, but its better if i don't.--Striver 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This page corroborates Israeli fatalities figures by name and place of residence. If the Lebanese want to do the same, let them do it. Can they? Like in Qana, where death toll suddenly has shrunk twicefold. It would be redundant, of course, if the world was not paying such a huge, oversized attention to this relatively small conflict, but it is. It would be better if the efforts of the world would concentrate on Rwanda (too late) and Darfur (almost too late). --Aleverde 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have the toll numbers, there is no reason to have an expanded list of every single death. ~ clearthought 15:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that in the light of recent fauxtography scandals, death-pimping and death toll shrinking, one might be interested in actual lists. When the world will start paying appropriate amount of attention to the conflict, and not concentrating almost all of the attenion on it (almost exclusively to flame Israel, of course), then it will indeed become redundant. But now it is not. --Aleverde 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The list could be just as, if not more, full of false claims. There are always inaccuracies in these kinds of conflicts, and I don't know what "death toll shrinking" you are referring to... I just see it going up! I also fail to see your logic; if there is an even more detailed list, there is bound to be more bad info. Judging by your enormous hatred of Islam, you are prejudiced against them anyway and, thus, if this was a list of Hezbollah fighters who died, you and some others probably would not be voting to keep it! ~ clearthought 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, all of the media and most nations are just out there to flame Israel... yeah right. ~ clearthought 16:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Just so. Except of half of US (not even the whole country) and some minor number of right-wing media like Fox News. The overwhelming majority is indeed just there to flame Israel. Heh, like it's something new. --Aleverde 16:19, 20 August 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 Keep SynergeticMaggot 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish celebration of Newroz

We already have a Norouz article explaining the topic. I do not see the reason we need a seperate article for the kurds since its the same holiday for them just like the other god knows how many countries listed on Norouz. Article is more of a link-o-rama with random links that dont provide additional info. Links are often vaiguely relate to the topic such as news reports. Some of them only have a sigle referance to the holiday while not providing any info about the holdiay itself. --Cat out 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, salvage what you can, dump the rest. --Cat out 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the creation of this page, and the summary style of the main Norouz page was done after much discussion which led to consensus. See Talk:Norouz#Peace_settlement and Talk:Newroz -- Jeff3000 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry wikipedia is not a warzone and everyone is expected to be at peace. Same holiday, single article. We dont have seperate Christmas article for every eurpoean country or ethnicity as it is celebrated mostly in an identical manner. I recognise one of the participants of that discussion who was blocked for a year: Diyako. --Cat out 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Are you positive we don have these articles: Christmas customs in the Philippines, Christmas customs in Poland and Christmas customs in Romania? Bertilvidet 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  No I am not. None of those have anything to do with politics though. And yes we dont have seperate Christmas article for every eurpoean country or ethnicity as it is celebrated mostly in an identical manner. --Cat out 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Aha, if Christmas celebration in some place where Christians constitute a minority gets political implentation it would be a reason for deleting the article on Wikipedia. I see. Bertilvidet 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Ah! My Conspiracy!

  Seriously though, dont change the subject. We aren't discussing those articles. If your objective is writing about politics involving kurds do it in its own article, not like this. Content forking is not allowed.

  --Cat out 10:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Putting all that information in the Norouz article would make it too long and detailed. So we are invoking the Wikipedia:Summary style, and moving the information to a daughter article. It is done for a lot of general pages in Wikipedia. The Kurdish celebration stuff is verifiable, but too detailed, thus it goes in a daughter article. Plus bringing in the comment about Diyako is an Ad hominem and is besides the point. -- Jeff3000 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Norouz + Kurdish celebration of Newroz dont get all that large after a merger. They both present similar info. Kurdish one has some info on contravercies and etc as an extra. It doesnt get all that large. We have much larger articles.

  I am merely pointing the arbitration hearing. Diyako is banned for a year. His comments should be viewed in the light of that arbcom hearing.

  --Cat out 01:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe not that large, but too much emphasis on one type of celebration (which is quite different than the others) in the main page (i.e. not in the proportion to the prominence of each). The current set-up allows the proportion of discussion of the different celebrations on the main page to be relatively well in proportion, but the detail that exists and is verifibale is not just eliminated. -- Jeff3000 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Quite different? How? Kurdish article is mostly about the political stuff full of weasle words and plently of irrelevant external links. Ah! The poem can go to wikisource or wikihell (if copyvio). --Cat out 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes indeed, because of the tensions Kurdish Newroz celebrations have often turned quite political (in demanding cultural rights) - which have simply made the celebrations more notable and thus relevant to deal with in an encyclopedia. Bertilvidet 07:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Is that a fact? Are you suggesting that every kurd is required to have a political motive in order to celebrate Newroz/Nourz (whatever)? Is it a requirement? Simplifying a holiday into a political raley is over generalization, factualy inacurate, and a POV fork attempt. --Cat out 07:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  It is a fact that the celebrations at several occasions has been politicized, is an important expression of Kurdish culture and thus has gained quite a lot of attention. Thus it would be strange not to have an article explaining the bacground and implications of the celebration on Wikipedia. Bertilvidet 08:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Riots are an expression of Kurdish culture? Sure it gets a lot of attention, but the average kurd I met was certainly not breaking windows, burning cars, and throwing pavement peices at local law enforcment personel. Some of those political self expression was quite violent. Newroz wasnt the only time such events have occured. If the riots/political ralleys are a part of kurdish culture feel free to write about that (with proper citation). But that has nothing to do with the spring holiday. --Cat out 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see any relevance of discussing riots in relation with Newroz. It is a yearly celebration, that gathers millions of participants in Turkey alone. So riots or not, I cannot see how the celebration can be deemed not notable enough for Wikipedia (even though some celebrations sadly enough have resulted in clases with the security forces). Bertilvidet 09:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Just like I do not see why article is relevant for political purposes. Its celebrated in millions in Iran as well as many other places just like christmas (according to the wikipedia article). Many other social gatherings in Turkey such as may holiday (workers holiday) end up with simmilar political issues as some kurdish politicians and political organisations have had frequently abused such gatherings. I do not think the political stuff, riots and clashes with the security forces are in no way relevant to the spring holiday. If you are looking for an article about Kurdish civil rights movement, this isn't the right title. --Cat out 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  No, I am not looking for identity or civil rights. I am specifally looking for Kurdish celebration of Newroz, in order to understand the background and implications of this even, which gets huge amounts of attention (at least in Turkey) every year. You are free to like or to dislike the celebrations, but they are present, and there is no reason not to let people get the possibility to gather information about it on Wiki. Bertilvidet 10:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry, I am not following you. Then why is there a picture of Abdlullah Ocalan in this article (according to the caption at least). Thats like cultural celebrations in Washington DC with binladen flags and etc. Not exactly your average cultural spring holiday. All that stuff is irrelevant to the holiday. Kurdish tradition does not include political ralleying and violence, does it? --Cat out 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  You are so right, not exactly an average cultural spring holiday. The article should adress these issues. Bertilvidet 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Which makes it a POV fork. These issues have nothing to do with the holdiay as you agree. --Cat out 10:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Jeff. Also it is undeniable that Newroz celebrations play an important role for the Kurdish self identity. Bertilvidet 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article had many irrelevant links. I have just cleanep up in them. Bertilvidet 06:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove the poem (how does that explain the celebration?) and you end up with text small enough to fit the main article.

A holiday by definition is a part of "self identity" I suppose, that would explain why Norouz is notable, but does not explain this article. You might want to start a Kurdish self identity (whatever that is) for that purpose. You just made it sound like content forking...

--Cat out 07:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Jeff. Based on skimming both articles, the Kurdish version of the holiday seems significant enough to warrant a separate article. The article is referenced, albeit mostly with external links that probably ought to be turned into endnotes. Were the Kurdish section merged, it would either dominate the head article, or information would be lost. Per WP:BIAS, if we have separate articles on ethnic Winter Solstice observations, we can have separate articles on ethnic Vernal Equinox observations also. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Jeff3000 and Smerdis of Tlön above. Also per Bertilvidet. There are many distinct ethnic populations in this area of the world with their own equally valid ethnic histories, customs, etc. Mattisse(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes and they have a common holiday which strangely enough has two articles about it. --Cat out 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per Jeff3000. --Mais oui! 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Same reason for celebrating it no need to make it a new article of the way Kurds or Persians celebrate it this could all be in one article. Ozgur Gerilla 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - if people see the need of these articles: Christmas customs in the Philippines, Christmas customs in Poland and Christmas customs in Romania? and these articles are not merged then why not have Kurdish celebration of Newroz it's absolutely the same thing. Ozgur Gerilla 08:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Why does everyone feel so threatened by the Kurds? --Xrblsnggt 18:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  Thats not a deletion criteria. And this article makes kurds look evil implying as if kurds riot to celebrate the spring holiday... Frankly I was expecting to be flaged as 'pro-kurdish' for this nom, not the conrary. --Cat out 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per Jeff3000.--DieWeibeRose 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bertilvidet and others; legit article.--Moby 04:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there were reasons for factoring this out of the main Norouz page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes (Hannah Montana)

We have a Wikiquote page for this, and besides, this is fancruft. It's very low on content too. Bibliomaniac15 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Wikiquote page, smerge any new quotes. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Disney cruft. Though the theme song is catchy 205.157.110.11 06:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Travislangley 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't even a real person. --Xrblsnggt 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• A lengthy article q:Hannah Montana has existed at Wikiquote for at least 3 months now, and our Hannah Montana article has linked to it for at least that long. This is simple duplication of another Wikimedia project. Delete. Uncle G 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- this isn't even a collection of quotes that could be transwikied. It's a couple of lines about Hannah Montana that aren't even a good example from the show. --M@rēino 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect, WP:NOT Wikiquote. Possible speedy candidate as lack of context, since all it is is the quotes themselves without explanation. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:23, 18 August 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 speedily deleted as CSD A7 (and userfied).. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ashwin Rao

User created vanity page.--BigCow 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vain vanity in vain (though anon addition made me smile). Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Created by a user of the same name. Didn't even complete his degree,therefore didn't start his professional career, hence no basis for fame. --Ageo020 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy — --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• The subject doesn't appear to satisfy any of the WP:BIO criteria. If either Ashwinrao (talk · contribs) or Ashwinrao1 (talk · contribs) had made any other contributions to Wikipedia apart from writing xyr autobiography, I would support userfication. But xe hasn't, and Wikipedia isn't a free user home page service for editors who have never edited anything here. Delete. Uncle G 15:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per above. —dima ^/talk/ 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Shouldn't have even been listed for AFD, just db-bio. MECU≈talk 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Paddles ^T_C 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Catamaran Company

delete proposed per WP:AUTO -submitted by Catamarans, WP:CORP as applied to chains and franchises and WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox Ohconfucius 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's SPAM WilyD 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Let's make it easy for you people: I nominated this because I think this contravenes WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 08:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no notability stated, implied, or attempted. Tychocat 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Should have been {{prod}}-ed. Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam --Xrblsnggt 18:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a simple re-creation of previously deleted content. No attempts have been made to address the point about soapboxing and original research made in the original AFD discussion. {{db-repost}} was the correct tag for this, not AFD. Uncle G 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Brahmin Contribution to Other Religions

Delete. This is article is an unchanged recreation of a previously deleted article Brahmin influence on other religions (AfD discussion). Both created by the same user.--Tigeroo 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Malformed nom, lisitng now. No vote. --W.marsh 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G4 as recreated material. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Brahmin per interesting to read. Anomo 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt Boyd (amateur wrestler)

Serially recreated article. See [2] and Matt Boyd (wrestler). Article claims that he is a collegiate wrestler, but the linked reference shows he wrestled in high school last winter. In other words, he will be a freshman next month. Fails WP:BIO. JChap2007 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --InShaneee 01:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly Speedy Delete (recreation of deleted article). I have not seen the article at Matt Boyd (wrestler), which is why my speedy deletion reason was somewhat conditional (requesting that the admin who viewed it check). However, the article's author removed it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for NN Bio. This is a joke.

The collegiate level happens to be the highest level of amateur folkstyle wrestling. He has participated in a great many competitive events, and is the only wrestler to have been pinned by Zack Newborn in 2 minutes, 43 seconds.

1. The Olympics and other international wrestling tournaments are far more significant than college level
2. Namedropping and bragging about being pinned point towards a joke/personal entry. --Wafulz 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   That is completely incorrect, folkstyle wrestling is not competed at the Olympics. That's like saying spacewalking is more interesting than this individual's sport so his article should be deleted. - Dollarsign$ 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Uh, what? I don't know what "fokstyle wrestling" means, but the freestyle wrestling performed at the Olympics is exactly the same wrestling as performed in college. Greco-Roman is different. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Your information is incorrect. Wrestling performed in American colleges is not the same style as either style performed at the Olympics. Please do not post incorrect information and present it as the truth, thus compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. 18.246.6.179 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Please explain what differences there are. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   why delete the article on the account that you don't have a good understanding of Matt Boyd or Wrestling Mattboyd112 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or possibly Speedy Delete per all above. Fails WP:NOT a place for every highschool wrestling chap to get an article. Fails WP:BIO. :) Dlohcierekim 03:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — per {{db-bio}} non-notable - GIen 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — and Protect against recreation. Recreated after failing the deletion review nom. mentions. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Recreated, possible vanity. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per NeoChaosX --Edgelord 06:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but do not protect against recreation. Not yet. One recreation is not a pattern. Travislangley 07:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment actually if you count the other article the nom. mentioned, it's been recreated at least twice --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete This article should not be deleted, but enhanced. If all the people ragging on this article devoted their efforts towards adding and improving to the article Wikipedia would be a better place. Also, if the kid competes in college wrestling now... doesn't that make him a college wrestler? - Dollarsign$ 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Of this new user's four edits, one is here and two are at Consumed Crustacean's RfA. See [3]. User is also blocked indefinitely.
• Speedy Delete Vanity as are the other 2 that seem to go along with it. --Djsasso 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect per above. NawlinWiki 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7, and possible recreated content, article fails to assert notability.-- danntm ^T _C 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per all above. MECU≈talk 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, since the only thing that even comes close is notability is an accomplished amateur wrestler at the collegiate level which is a lie, since he hasn't competed at the collegiate level yet. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Postpone Deletion If more evidence is added to the article explaining the wrestler's notability, it should stay. If not it should be deleted. 18.246.6.179 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETEwhy delete the article on the account that you don't have a good understanding of Matt Boyd or Wrestling Mattboyd112 04:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Metal4kde and Image:Metal4kde.jpg

This is just one of hundreds of KDE themes; there's no indication that it is more notable or important than the others. Even the author's entry for Metal4kde on kde-look.org states that it is "just another metalic look for kde".

The creator of the article in question also uploaded a corresponding image with the attribution "Moty Rahamim". Moty Rahamim also happens to be the creator of the Metal4kde theme. Therefore, I think this is also a vanity article. Both the article and the image (Image:Metal4kde.jpg) should be deleted. —Psychonaut 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Notability neither attempted, stated, nor implied. Tychocat 09:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MECU≈talk 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Non-notable. If it was a person or group it'd have been a speedy candidate. Paddles ^T_C 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 21:37, 21 August 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 Alt-D (Snowball + Vanity + Bio + NN + CSD Material). Tawker 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Brendan Burns

None of this seems to assert meeting WP:BIO. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — If I recognised this a being a notable training center it may be a start, but I live in Auckland (where article's subject teaches) and have never heard of the Media Design School; The address is simply listed as level 10 of an office building. Failure to meet WP:BIO seems pretty but and dried to me. - GIen 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are 50 mentions in an Australia and New Zealand media database, none seems to be a reference to him. Similarly, I can find no reference to him on Google scholar. There are verifiability problems with this article not to mention problems against our notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• SAVE.

Media Design School is one of the most prestigious design schools in New Zealand. It's Game Dept. is award-winning, and has produced titles such as IGF 2006 Winners "Goliath" www.goliathgame.com and "Shear Factor" www.ShearFactor.co.nz.

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/

and more specifically:

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_game_development_overview.asp

also

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_interactive_gaming_overview.asp

also

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_interactive_gaming_faculty.asp— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.13.174 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Blatant vanity article --Xrblsnggt 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "brendan burns" +"media design school" gets six distinct hits, two of which are WP. The other four Ghits are the school's faculty roster and a couple of press releases. No national awards, or multiple non-trivial third-party articles to show notability. The fact the school may be notable or that it gives diplomas is not a consideration for Mr. Burns' notability. Tychocat 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tychocat, fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, suspected WP:VANITY, no WP:RS indicating notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because article is not verified by independent sources which acknowledge the notability of Mr. Burns in a manner that would satisfy WP:BIO, not to mention the WP:VANITY concerns.-- danntm ^T _C 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like vanity to me. Sparsefarce 18:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. MECU≈talk 21:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have faintly heard of Media Design School, but it's not the biggest institute of its type in New Zealand, or the most prestigious, by a long chalk (and it's worth noting that it has no Wikipedia article). Mr Burns is definitely below the radar though, so delete as per Tychocat, danntm, et al. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, GIen, Tychocat, danntm. The fact that the main contributors are User:Brendanburns and an anonymous IP supports the vanity assertion. Paddles ^T_C 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Shocking This man thinks he is basketball god dennis rodman as well as a vain software git of some description. Clearly the man has serious vanity issues.
• Delete per nom. (The commenter above mine is referring to some vandalism done to the article, which I reverted earlier today.) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:12, 21 August 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 Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

William I Orr

"Many classic books" yet none can be named and no sources can be cited. Possible vanity page. ReverendG 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not a household name, but a notable science author with numerous published books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is a list of his works, which seem to be rather non-trivial. However, I have no idea how much editing interest a text book author would actually generate, so I doubt this would ever get past stub status. --Wafulz 02:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — WP:BIO states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" - a google search of "William I Orr" award yeilds 0 results and looking through a search for just the authors name I am having trouble locating multiple reviews. Will continue looking - GIen 04:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, his books were published in the days before the internet was big, from the 50s to early 90s, so I doubt many of his reviews would be online. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Amateur Radio Relay League has an annual award named for Orr. Here's a mailing-list obit. WP:RS will be a problem, but I think notability is there.--Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has notability in the Radio world so I can see editor interest. Text book authors actually have a fair amount of influence in their particular field. 205.157.110.11 07:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is sufficient. Travislangley 07:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article now lists several of his books and their ISBN numbers. His Radio Handbook textbook is in its 23rd Edition. A google of his name or call sign reports many pages that reference or sell his works. His publications span about 50 years. Rearden9 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• retract Nevermind, he's plenty notableReverendG 20:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Domination (2004 computer game)

The game does not appear to meet notability requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (software) - or anywhere near that in fact. No 3rd party sources; possible self-promotion. Mdwh 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any reliable, independent sources using search engines. Hell, I can't even find the game using search engines. --Wafulz 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. "Taicade Studios creates little freeware diversion games" -- like Domination.[4] --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Travislangley 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —dima ^/talk/ 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 15:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dhartung. Captainktainer * Talk 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MECU≈talk 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator. Combination 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable enough for an article. guitarhero777777 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Even if the verifiability problems are addressed, the content in here is only enough for a brief mention in another article. Paddles ^T_C 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Ace of Sevens 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Telaprolu Rangamma

Four cleanup tags, first-person writing, and no google hits for the full name - charitably, this is non-notable; more likely it's just nonsense. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely seems like something completely fabricated. --Wafulz 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Vanity. Quite a lot of superlatives used in this article. --Ageo020 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: There's a very slight chance it's not a hoax. See Hinduism#The_many_deities_.28Parts_and_Parcels_of_God.29 They're up to 330 million "devas" apparently. But anyway, this article as it stands definitely fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not Noteable Bio MECU≈talk 21:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, blatant POV problems, non-notable member of the Hindu pantheon. Paddles ^T_C 01:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Parthi 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obviously a hoax and therefore nonsense (G1). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

American Dragon: Jake Long: The Movie

(This was previously prodded, and was contested) There are no references given in this article, and I can not find any indicator that this movie is actually in production. The IMDb ID that's given gives me a 404. These things, and the super-celebrity casting makes it seem likely to be a hoax. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This ain't the voice casting for AD:JL: Jake is normally played by Dante Busco and Rose by Amy Bruckner. And this ain't MCCoupe, folks! To end this hoax, I'd burn it down with 3 dragons. Dragon Up! TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard of movie, find it unlikely. ReverendG 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Any movie with this cast of superstars, coming out in less than two months, would show up in IMDB, and in multiple news reports. Total hoax. Someone probably needs to take a good look at this author's other contribs. Fan-1967 02:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think he created a favorite Super Bowl moments item in the main namespace. Braydwilde has gone wild, folks. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Per WP:HOAX...I mean, look at the 'cast'. "From the director of 'The Chronicles of Narnia'..."; Haley Joel Osment; Tony Hawk; Jim Carrey...and a $250 million budget?? Just get rid of it. And yes, the member's contributions should be in question, for he has not really made any good contributions. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Hoax and this Disney theme song SUCKS!. 205.157.110.11 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List of models

Unbounded list of potentially infinite size. Article is unmaintainable by nature. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 ^talk 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Categories are better than articles for generating lists anyway. Dybryd 02:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we really don't need this category. We have one in Category:Models by nationality . --Ageo020 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per WP:NOT - GIen 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per all of the above. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Selmo 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think so, Tim. Danny Lilithborne 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all of the above. Travislangley 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We have cats like Category:American models, and lists only beat cats when they offer something like citations or analysis. This list doesn't, and I'd say that it couldn't in a practical manner. --M@rēino 14:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Way too broad. I believe we already have categories as well as lists that are more specific. "List of models" could potentially include anyone who ever stepped in front of a camera and could become loaded with NN redlinks. 23skidoo 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 01:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep - Lists are not the same as categories. This could be a good page if given a chance. DeckardDDK

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OpinionSource

Reads like an ad, 1st person involved. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 1,929,505. Google gets 76 unique, about 800 total hits, which is dreadful for a website that's had two years to build an audience. Fan-1967 02:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. 205.157.110.11 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Travislangley 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. In this case the Alexa rating doesn't mean much, because the target audience of the site is unlikely to have much overlap with Alexa users. Still, it doesn't quite appear notable enough. Paddles ^T_C 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam --Xrblsnggt 18:39, 19 August 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} keep. --james^(talk) 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nintendocore

The term itself, while not a neologism, is not a real genre. It was a joke coined by the members of HORSE the Band during an interview to describe the sound of their album "The Mechanical Hand". The band themselves object to the use of the term as a genre. And even if that isn't enough, no other bands have adopted the term nor has it been properly used as a genre. A look on google will demonstrate that most hits are either tags on last.fm, which don't qualify as genres or as a reliable source for that matter, Wikipedia and many usernames. There isn't a reliable source, an article or anything that describes "Nintendocore" as a real genre nor that it actually links the bands named in this article to it. Its unsourced, unverifiable and pretty much taken out of context. Also, it's beyond me why the article is still on wikipedia, because it had already been nominated for deletion and the decision was "deleted". That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore -- Clementduval 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Eligible for speedy but weak keep as usage seems wider than in the previous AFD. LA Times, Harvard Crimson. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Is completely verifiable. Add above sources and you've got yourself a stub. will381796 06:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep dear God, it actually is being used. On the plus side--at least it doesn't link to Nintendo-porn 205.157.110.11 07:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Technically, this is a speedy deletion candidate, as the content is largely identical to the content deleted as a result of the prior AFD discussion. I don't speak for other administrators, but my decision is not to speedily delete it, because of the articles cited by Dhartung above, both of which were published after the prior AFD discussion. Whether there are now sources, that address the original research and verifiability issues raised in the prior AFD discussion, needs a full discussion. Uncle G 12:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral On one hand, it's received several mentions in reputable print sources. On the other, it's still a very new neologism (all sources found are December 2005 and later), and it also seems that only one band actually created and used the term to describe themselves, and it's being appropriated to describe over similar bands that may or may not want anything to do with the title. It still holds a very niche status. This also doesn't deserve a speedy deletion since real world circumstances have changed. But, I'm not really sure about whether the article should stay. --SevereTireDamage 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the band that created the term, did so as a joke in an interview. And actually doesn't describe themselves as such. This "genre" is nothing more than an inside-joke that got kinda big. But anyhow, if the article is kept, I guess it sort of needs a full re-write & mention of its real status and use, instead of making it seem like a real "genre". However, I guess that'd also be hard without original research. --Clementduval 20:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This genre of music is very widespread and noticable within the gaming world. guitarhero777777 15:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.It's a smal genre, yes, but it exists. Bands have been mixing hardcore with video game music since the late 90's. only the word is new
• Keep per above. Havok (T/C/c) 11:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Yes it's a neologism that was coined as a joke, but it seems to have gained some currency. Ace of Sevens 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand this is genuine, and can be verified. but this is severely lacking of information and seems to be more of a band listing then an article on the genere
• Speedy Keep- per above.--Peephole 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article appears to have been deleted last time due to lack of verifiability, the L.A. Times, Harvard Crimson, and other print sources appear to have resolved that. RFerreira 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Deleted by CambridgeBayWeather as WP:NN and closed by SynergeticMaggot 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach

Not a single Google result, contains nonsense, probable vanity. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep How can this article be a joke. I'll give you the facts
  • He was born in 1889. That makes him 117 years old. Yet he has retained his teenage looks.
  • Kevin stole his headphones. This is extremely encyclopedic.
  • He has created a new religion in Mexico, "Sagrevyum"
  • He has more than 21 followers. When Jesus started preaching, he just had 12 disciples. So, this religion is bound to be a major religion within the next few decades.

--Ageo020 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete for obvious reasons, and ask the kids to go find somewhere else to play. Fan-1967 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not so much "vanity" as "insanity" - Delete BigHaz 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm just gonna stop wasting everyone's time and SD this. Sorry, guys. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN Pretty good effort. Tintin (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Vanity and unverifiable. I love wikipedia sarcasm. will381796 06:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material. This has been deleted twice now. Salt the earth and ban the creator. -- Merope 13:07, 18 August 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Violence against women

This article is not only a stub and provides little more then a page for links, but has a few glaring other problems. Firstly, the fact that any of the violence exclusive to women, such as bride burning or sati, are covered in other articles that provide more information. Conversely, the topic of domestic violence was brought up as "predominatly suffered" by women. However, many recent studies show this to be false, and that men are more often victims of violence. With several such glaring errors, and a lack of any new and useful information other then links, is a reason why this article should simply be deleted altogether. Matt620 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into women's rights, which should by rights be expanded. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Expand I think there are some unique categories of violence against women, and certainly, this article could have a place. But it really needs to be expanded and researched properly. Per the nom's comments, there is a false sense that 'domestic violence' is suffered by women more, and it does strike me as a pretty glaring error. Implicit in expansion is correcting these points. joshbuddy, talk 07:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral You could make a very worthwhile, sourced and NPOV article on this subject matter. If done right it would work as a content fork off of women's rights. Right now, this article would need a lot of work. 205.157.110.11 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Retain. This is a category of crime that is often cited by women's groups and the article lists a number of links below that use the term. GeorgeLouis 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but add note that it needs serious reworking. I agree that it could become a worthwhile and sourced NPOV article. Give it a little time. If nobody fixes it, we can always delete it later. Once it's gone, it's gone. Travislangley 07:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, title of article excludes the possibility that the article could ever be NPOV. User:Angr 07:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I disagree. Violence can be very well defined and restrictive in what scope the article would present as Violence against women. Judging by the list presented in the current article, the scope would primarily be physical violence, which leads itself to the potential of numerous studies and news reports as sources. In the hands of a compentant editor, those sources can give way to a clinical NPOV tone. 205.157.110.11 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, real phenomenon of widespread concern and interest. Gazpacho 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced encyclopaedic article. Sure, it's a stub, but that's not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, real phenomenon. It is good to have a central point to include all the types of such violence. The article is more than a list. The nomination is notes that men are also subject to domestic violence, but they are not subject to, say clitoris removal or to foot binding. Many societies and religions have as a basic principle subjugation of and violence toward women.Edison 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per EdisonDoctor Bruno 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment looks like it'll be kept, so Violence against men will be created too. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine as long as both articles refer to studies, interested organizations. Don't do it just to make a point. Gazpacho 01:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have never created something ot make a point, your admonition fails to assume good faith. I guess I've been slimed by cold soup. While we're here, a lot could be said for the core of a Violence against men article: groups against military conscription, and the genetal integrity movement are 2 groups well documented, but it's not my cup of soup of an article, but just so we're an even-handed WP, expect someone to do it. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep Definitely encyclopedic. Borisblue 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Important topic, but this article adds nothing that isn't already covered in the other relevant articles. Paddles ^T_C 01:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. For God's sake. VivianDarkbloom 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been looking for other articles that could cover this as specifically as this can, but didn't find any. Needs serious attention and expansion, though. --Thunderhead 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand to explain the significance of this phenomenon. Heimstern Läufer 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an empty page with no claim as to the notability of the subject.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Attitude Song

Nothing in this one-sentence article implies notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• CSD A7: no notability: borders on CSD A1 for patent nonsense. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I see no possible value in this. ---Charles 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was a subscriber to the magazine and I thought that including this fact could be of interest. In fact, Guitar Player Magazine was the first to issue turntable playable inserts that featured artists. It is of historical note for the magazine, artist and song. Markmckeever 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A1, not because it's one sentence, but because that sentence provides no context for expansion. It leaves you wondering, "So?" --Kinu ^t/_c 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate sally

From the page, does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. Article is also very poorly written, and looks a bit like self-promotion —Mets501 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and BJAODN some sections. Daniel Case 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — A quick Google search brings up a fair amount of hits: [5]. However, I don't see anything obviously passing WP:MUSIC, and even if the band is sufficiently notable, this current article is borderline nonsense, I'd prefer to see it deleted without prejudice against recreation if done so in a better form. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN without prejudice, per all above. Paddles ^T_C 01:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete + BJAODN must applaud them though. that whole dead coming back to life, then going insane bit made me want to check them out. --Clementduval 05:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepIntellectualprop2002 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per AbsolutDan. Heimstern Läufer 04:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable TomPhil 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Requel, Midquel, Interquel

Neologisms. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - especially when the first sentence says "Midquel is a neologism" --Cassavau 03:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What a bunch of garbage. ---Charles 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All as protologisms per WP:NOR and WP:NEO. First draft of article read, "Requel was a term coined by Marcos Cosme, a Fairleigh Dickinson University film student and screen writer"[6]. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Satori Son 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NFT neologisms. Daniel Case 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. NawlinWiki 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per all above, and make any necessary cleanup to articles such as prequel, sequel, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is badly written and makes no sense whatsoever, not to mention the factual inaccuracies. TDude695 18:41, 19 August 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 Merge into Ozzy Osbourne. —Mets501 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Necromandus

My initial reaction upon seeing article is that this band is not notable enough, but not being well-versed in the genre, would appreciate input by others. For now, delete is my opinion. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)}

• Delete or Merge into Ozzy Osbourne never released a record, disbanded in 1973, 33 years ago...not likely to achieve their dreams, imo. If kept, perhaps someone should mention that bassplayer McCarten died of kidney failure in 2004. Bustter 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Fails to meet WP:BAND criteria - I thought they may have meet "Has released two or more albums on a major label" however did not release any with Vertigo. As such Delete. - GIen 04:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:BAND says "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This doesn't quite seem to be a side project or early band, it seems to be a band that Ozzy Ozzbourne was (briefly) a part of. I'd appreciate other users' comments. --Daniel Olsen 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ozzy Osbourne; they released albums and had a (later) famous member, so this is sufficiently notable for inclusion somewhere. However I think they fail WP:BAND criteria for an article of their own, per the section cited above by Daniel Olsen. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ozzie Osbourne. Heimstern Läufer 04:11, 24 August 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 keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Beep Beep (band)

Article for an band of questionable notability. See WP:BAND guidelines. Also not clear that article's sources meet requirements of WP:V. Was previously PROD, but disputed by experienced editor, so comes here for review and consensus. --Satori Son 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - It seems they don't quite meet the WP:MUSIC standards. --Daniel Olsen 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - only one album on an independent so doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on that front but, as WP:MUSIC is hopelessly outdated and there are copious G-Hits for "Beep Beep"+"Saddle Creek" [7], I think it should be retained. Ac@osr 10:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• The look to be fairly popular; they're on an established label; article's sources are fine. I was kinda hoping the band would sound fantastic, too, but alas, 'twas not to be. Oh, well, three out of four ain't bad. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I mean they're on Saddle Creek. That's a big-time indie label. Sparsefarce 18:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:MUSIC is indeed outdated. And it's Saddle Creek. I think that almost by default, all bands in labels like that should have an article. Might be an indie, but indie as in independent, not as in basement with a cd-burner.

• Delete per nom. I see a lot of dissing of that annoying WP:MUSIC - I realize it's terribly inconvenient when you can't meet it's requirements and the article gets deleted, but that's what we have, folks - change it if you can, but it's the same playing field for everyone in the meantime. Speaking of which, I see no reason to invent new policy/guidelines when the old ones still hold. Band fails WP:MUSIC for lacking charted hits, national tours, multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. "Copious" Ghits described above are confused by a lot of sound effect notations ("beep beep"), download sites, blogs, and music sales, which is why you don't use Google as the sole arbiter for notability. Notability of their label is not to be confused with notability of the band - at best, this suggests the band should be merged with the article about the label. Tychocat 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It seems to be on the cusp of meeting WP:MUSIC, but not quite. —Michael Hays 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Intellectualprop2002 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BAND (Cnutvictim 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)).
• Keep: this may not meet WP:BAND, but it seems to meet WP:BIO which is more important: I found several articles on them, including from the Boston Phoenix: [8] [9] [10], et cetera. However, someone really needs to clean up this article, it doesn't say jack about its subject; it's barely even a stub. Mangojuice^talk 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, please keep in mind that the whole concept of notabilty is NOT a guideline or a policy, only an opinion that is shared by quite some Wikipedians. Especially in cases were there is doubt on whether or not something is "notable", it would be better to choose NOT to delete the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7, as no notability was asserted for the subject. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Spencer Bates

Tagged for cleanup last month, WP:BIO and blog-like and/or advert may be applicable.  — MrDolomite | Talk 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, so tagged, very long article/blog but I couldn't find an assertion of notability in it. NawlinWiki 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with fire per all above. Not sure if it's speedy since the subject claims to have released an EP or something, but I won't cry if that happens. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems likely to be a vanity article by a not-yet-notable "up and coming" musician; quick web search suggests he is remarkably good at self-promotion. Paddles ^T_C 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All Ohio State Fair Youth Choir

A non-notable youth choir that fails WP:ORG (it's the closest I could find, this isn't quite WP:MUSIC. In addition, the tone is not encyclopedic. Crystallina 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — I have just marked the article as a copyvio - word for word from the subject's website. However AfD should continue (I have left tagged) as it may be decided not to delete based on copyvio which would make this discussion then relevant again - GIen 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question What is the policy for articles that are copyvio. Previous articles have been speedy deleted because they were totally copyvios. Is this policy or just what some admins do? will381796 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the {{db-copyvio}} template, db-copyvio only applies when This article was created in the last 48 hours and all of its revisions are blatant copyright infringements, taken from the website of a commercial content provider ..., with no assertion of permission. . This missed the deadline. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable with/without copyright vio. 205.157.110.11 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligit

An advertisement-style page for a subject that fails WP:SOFTWARE. Crystallina 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deligit. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -Spamgasmic. 205.157.110.11 06:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per spam --Musaabdulrashid 10:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:SPAM, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Probably a WP:COPYVIO but I'm too lazy to investigate, since it would mean having to continue looking at this buzzword bonanza. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per spam. —dima ^/talk/ 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 16:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio Alert I found this to be a copyvio of a page on intelligit.com. I will tag it as such. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per spam and copyvio reason above. --FlyingPenguins 05:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Greendale, Kapiti

I do not believe this is a real place. As a native of the Kapiti Coast, I have never heard of Greendale; it does not appear on any map I have or can access online (all I can find are Greendale Drive and Greendale Reserve in Otaihanga); a Google search does not give any page mentioning a village named Greendale on the Kapiti Coast; the only page (besides the Greendale disambiguation page) on Wikipedia that linked to Greendale, Kapiti was the page on Sidney Holland, who was actually born in Greendale, CANTERBURY; and most tellingly, the Land Information New Zealand website's placename database states the only Greendales (a locality and a homestead) in New Zealand are in Canterbury, not on the Kapiti Coast. Therefore, due to the lack of any evidence that Greendale is a real place on the Kapiti Coast, I have nominated the article for deletion. Axver 04:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Since article provides no sources, and none can be found, fails WP:V. --Satori Son 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to verifiability problems with article as outlined by nominator. Capitalistroadster 06:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Good job on doing some very thorough research. 205.157.110.11 06:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article's history shows it to have been an anon's sandbox.-gadfium 06:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well done, to both the nominator and Satori Son for their rationales. Uncle G 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Greendale is a small village located on the Kapiti Coast in New Zealand . No it isn't, not according to any source I've got here either. There's Greendale in Caterbury and Greenvale in Southland, but no Greendale in Kapiti. Well done Axver. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Good catch. -- Avenue 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucinda Mendez (Valiant Comics)

Minor character. Has only ever appeared in a single comic issue. Non-notable fancruft. g026r 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Essential data can easily be merged into Geomancers (comics) article, and essential data has already been inserted there. Badbilltucker 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Badbilltucker. Non-notable minor fictional character. --Satori Son 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete comic-cruft. 205.157.110.11 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Controlling Psoriasis without Steroids

Personal medical testimonial that really should be speedied, but I'm not sure it meets any criteria. So it's here. Daniel Case 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. --Satori Son 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. It's a first-person personal essay, certainly not encyclopedic. Doesn't fit any speedy category. Fan-1967 04:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear first person OR. 205.157.110.11 06:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - OR, also could expose WP to legal liability for appearing to give medical advice. GrahameS 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic essay, and all of the treatments it discusses are already at Psoriasis. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant WP:OR, WP:NOT a how-to. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. I have a feeling I've seen this one before (if so, it could be speedied as recreated deleted material) but I'm not certain. Paddles ^T_C 16:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikitistics

nn website, fails WP:WEB, only two Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete wiki-cruft. 205.157.110.11 06:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP is not a web directory. Tychocat 09:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 16:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Gray Porpoise 19:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep fills gap in Reference wikis List_of_wikis. While WP is not a directory, it does maintain helpful lists of similar sites. Joe 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's new, not unimportant.71.136.88.251 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Eric 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Zoe. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Intellectualprop2002 00:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -great idea Cochese8 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this user may be a sockpuppet of User:Jsmorse47 above, per here, but I don't have proof. Wmahan. 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What proof does Mr. Mahan need when he's got the power of accusation? Joe 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - obvious nn site ("beta", <50 articles), fails WP:WEB, etc. Note to closing admin - ermorse ("Eric"), Cochese8 and Jsmorse47 ("Joe") above are among the few contributors to the site, which brings up WP:VANITY concerns. The IP contribution above is also San Diego based, as is likely with the other keep vote. - David Oberst 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

ObertsOberst's argument fails: Google Talk is Beta and has an extensive article; also if Wikitistics had 51 articles would that make it relavent enough? Yes, I have friends/relatives in San Diego just like ObertsOberst has friends in Yellowknife, or maybe not. Joe 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Darn it, I wish people attacking me by name would at least spell it correctly. That aside, being a non-notable website failing WP:WEB is no sin, but it certainly leads to an article's removal until the situation should change. And again, there is nothing wrong with having friends and family (although apparently I wouldn't know), but if people are commenting on their own website and , um, accidentally forget to mention this, they shouldn't be offended if this omission is pointed out for the benefit of the closing admin - WP:VANITY exists for a reason. Finally, I'll assume pride of ownership can cloud one's analytical skills dramatically enough to see Google Talk as a suitable notability comparison for Wikitistics. - David Oberst 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that you used the Beta status to discredit the website, which isn't reason enough because of the Google Talk reference. Can you describe exactly how it fails WP:WEB?

"beta" was merely an additional observation confirming the impression that the site was small, new, and had no evidence of notability, not an effort to "discredit" it. As for WP:WEB, this seems a little backwards - are there criteria you feel it meets? I've got nothing against small websites in their millions, but i don't think I'm wrong in saying that Wikitistics comes nowhere near Wikipedia inclusion threshold, as the results here show. I'd suggest you wait until the likely Deletion closure on this, and politely ask the closing admin to explain their reasoning, and confirm with a couple of other admins that they would have handled it in the same way. - David Oberst 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy that on the closing admin. About the your reasoning, perhaps it is backwards, but I've already explained its worth as a WP article and showed how other similar articles exist (above). In addition, it's unique as far as I know. I maintain that the burden of proof falls on the people that want to remove potentially viable information. I'm sure the Wikitistics inclusion threshold is as high as any other website despite its current user status. You mention that it's small (though you have "nothing against" that) and new (which doesn't seem to carry much weight), but besides that, is there anything that you find non-notable about the site so that it must be removed to save the 8k of storage space? Joe 01:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, non-notable, etc. Wmahan. 03:00, 28 August 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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardware Store (song)

Not notable, wasn't a single, no video. Crumbsucker 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the same reason "Why Does This Always Happen To Me?" was just deleted. Joltman 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe worth a token mention on the "Weird Al" Yankovic page. Wikipedia is not a record store. 205.157.110.11 06:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability stated, implied, or attempted. I'm sure it's a funny song, but it only gets 635 distinct Ghits (for "hardware store"+"weird al"), mostly MP3 download sites; no multiple non-trivial third-party articles, no awards, no evidence of charting. It therefore fails WP:MUSIC. Tychocat 09:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - no need for other arguments. WilyD 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Have you ever listened to the song???? Footballplayr69 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Weird Al and everything that he does has cult status for quite a few people Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs to be rewritten substantially. No, listing all the items in the vocal interlude does not work, and I think the YTMND reference should stay with YTMND's own wiki. -K2JMan 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think Weird Al's cult status rises to the level of an article on one of his minor songs. - David Oberst 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - some songs suck poop; but we need more articles on Weird Al songs. --Nintendude ^message 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy DELETE for reasons 1) Author has requested (see below). 2) WP:SNOW 3) there is some evidence that the subject of the bio is unhappy. 4) borderline A7 anyway -Doc 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lora Bofill

A living person, and the only indication of notability is a bit part in a movie that I'm unable to confirm from any source except for what's reportedly her resume. Significantly, not listed in IMDB for any of the major studio movies she is supposed to have appeared in. That leaves us with the fact that she's a doctor, which is nice but doesn't justify a Wikipedia article. In conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariju Bofill, the creation of these articles smacks of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. I disagree with the stalking assessment since this looks very much like vanity--otherwise the picture is probably copyright vio. Headshots are almost always own by the photographer or the copyright is released to the talent agency. 205.157.110.11 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN local actress getting walk-ons. Maybe next year. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I may have written the article, but I realise that she does not meet WP:BIO, unlike her sister. I wrote a flattering article about someone I know. Stalking? Proof please, Mr. Snow? Do you sling accusations of criminal activity whenever you feel like it? At least she's real, unlike some piece of crap article like Bulbasaur. Billy Blythe 09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "who?" Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, including author Billy Blythe's request. Probably not speediable as db-author since other edits have been made. NawlinWiki 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, WP:SNOW and author's request (see below). -Doc 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mariju Bofill

After removal of unverifiable information, we're left with the fact that this is a State Department employee, that's all. Considering the appropriate care needed with biographies of living people, that's not a suitable article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lora Bofill. Frankly, these articles give an appearance of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. --Satori Son 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. No claims of notability outside of an AOL commercial. 205.157.110.11 06:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, she's barely out of law school (and chose a functionary career instead of something exciting and notable). Good on her, we need bureaucrats, but it doesn't automatically rate you a Wikipedia entry. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She's a local politician who has received significant press coverage in both the Brownsville paper and the Logan (W.Va.) Banner. That means she meets WP:BIO, just as well as Thomas Esposito does. Mr. Snow is deleting anything he doesn't believe rather than anything he can't verify. A simple Google search will show Ms. Bofill's academic qualifications. I suspect that this is a very, very bad faith nomination. It's a flattering article with a flattering picture, compared to what she looks like now. Billy Blythe 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if you've got anything to back up the accusation of "bad faith nomination", I'd like to see it. Tychocat 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't call it bad faith myself, but something's really fishy when Michael Snow has deleted information as "unverifiable" when it shows up at the top of a simple Google search. VivianDarkbloom 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bad faith nomination:" (n) AfD jargon for an AfD nomination in which the nominator feels compelled to make personal attacks, unwarranted attacks, assume bad faith, or generally act like a %^&*. Come on, nobody uses the phrase "bad faith nomination" properly, so get off my back. Anyway, I do have a gut feeling that the guy's got ulterior motives, but can't prove it to the satisfaction of most. Billy Blythe 16:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• The fact "nobody" uses the phrase properly does not justify you using it improperly. I won't quote WP:CIVIL to you, since it looks like we're 'way past that stage, thanks. Try to stick to the issues. Tychocat 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A Google of "mariju bofill" turns up only 20 distinct hits, with two mentions in the Brownsville Herald (the article is about passport applications, not her, though she is quoted as a source). Her academic qualifications are not at question, nor are her looks at issue. Tychocat 10:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "who?" Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable even under Billy Blythe's last version. NawlinWiki 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Dhartung, Tychocat. Paddles ^T_C 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep immediately and restart Afd after decent interval. Nominator vandalized article by removing easily verified statements that some here would think show notability. Nominator removed "unverifiable" information (scholarships/fellowships/awards/community service) even though it is documented by first non-Wikipedian links in Google search. VivianDarkbloom 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator as removed material, as he said in his edit summary, 'he was unable to verify'. Please assume good faith. Actually, it is possible to verify most of it [11], but whilst that may make the moninator mistakles, it does not constitute vandalism. Calm down and present your case. --Doc 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've now restored what I can verify. Perhaps more can also be restored after verification. (Oh, even if it's all verified, delete)--Doc 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. This isn't the first time I've seen this on AfD, and it's dubious behavior at best. Especially given Michael's rather odd personal borderline attack on Billy as a stalker. (It looks more like the reverse.) What's wrong with putting this on hiatus, given that Michael, even if he was acting in good faith, has completely polluted the discussion by his unexplained gutting of the article? How do you miss the top half dozen items in the basic Google search? VivianDarkbloom 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please start reading people's comments without assuming the worst. MS is suggesting that the article has the appearance of stalking, he made no comment about the actual motives of the creator. There is no reason to restart this debate - the article is sure to be deleted whatever happens.--Doc 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would say a sizable count of Afd editors do view an article's most recent edit history prior to voicing their AfD opinion. Even with the additional information, there is not sufficent notablity per WP:BIO (or even for a politician for that matter.) 205.157.110.11 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the material deleted by Michael Snow does not do any more to establish notability than the parts he left in. FreplySpang 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:BIO. Mid-level civil servant with no significant claim of notability. --Allen3 ^talk 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. (And the photo is creepy, too.) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Those discussions I've read about AfD being a "snakepit" and a haven for incivility are dead-on true. I thought Mariju might qualify for a bio because she barely meets WP:BIO as I read it. I guess she'd have to be elected to truly qualify. Is anyone interested in why I wrote the article in the first place? Editcountitis, in part, although I did want to see how long it would last, to sort of see where WP:BIO ended and began. I thought I needed to create articles, and I don't write about fiction. I prefer writing about real people. What I didn't do is stalk. A stalker would have provided personal, invasive information. A stalker would have tried to bait his subject or paint the subject in a bad light or put in slightly wrong information to invite the subject's participation. I didn't do any of that, and I surely didn't even let on how I knew her, or my identity, which is none of anyone's business. Michael Snow hasn't responded to my refutations of his stalking allegations, so I deem them baseless and inflammatory. I think he needs watched for personal attacks. I probably, honestly wouldn't have had a thing to say on this AfD if I weren't attacked. I'm going to echo Zell Miller's remarks to Chris Matthews with respect to Michael Snow. "I wish we still lived in a time when a man could challenge another man to a duel." Billy Blythe 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete according to main author's wishes and WP:SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Blythe (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. --Maxamegalon2000 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UniFriend.co.nz

non notable, seems to be somewhat of an ad American Patriot 1776 04:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:WEB. --Satori Son 04:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable Onco_p53 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. 205.157.110.11 06:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable among NZ students also. Though I have heard of it, is no made much of an impact in NZ --Ageo020 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Absolutely fails WP:WEB - GIen 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Satori, Ageo. Paddles ^T_C 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —dima ^/talk/ 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviosuly, per above. --Deenoe 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any references to it in the New Zealand media. Capitalistroadster 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Summer Ever

Not long awaited on Google. JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into The Revolution Smile. There is nothing inherently notable about this "Crystal ball" album that would merit it's own article. Wikipedia is not a record store. 205.157.110.11 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP is not a crystal ball per WP:NOT. I don't know where 'WP is not a record store' appears in guidelines/policies. Tychocat 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Tychocat. It's already mentioned in The Revolution Smile, not convinced more needs to be added. Paddles ^T_C 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Popular

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Bogsat 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very notable. --Schalicto 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SPAM, WP:BIO and quite possibly WP:HOAX WilyD 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't a hoax, or spam and he is notable. You can google doctor popular and find out this information about him. He founded the san fransisco chapter of the cartoonist conspiaracy, he found the internationally known toy club "College for the Easily Amused" (as featured on ABC's Master of Champions). He created beats for MC Frontalot. What more do you need? --Schalicto 23:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment How about sources? Right now it looks like spam. 205.157.110.11 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as currently failing WP:V, and WP:BIO. Schalicto may want to refer to those sections of policy, since the article may be worth saving with the proper documentation. You may ask questions on my talk page, I'm willing to help you if you want. Tychocat 10:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons --Xrblsnggt 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blink music

Probably is a vanity page by blinkmusic.com. It seems non notable. --Cyclopia 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete, or at the very least, rewrite for NPOV and to eliminate the advertising language. CPAScott 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless you can verify with reliable sources some of the recording artist who recorded at the studio and clean up the advertising spam. 205.157.110.11 06:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, fails WP:MUSIC for not showing any charted hits, nationally-toured groups, or third-party articles. Tychocat 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. Given that the author is Blinkmusic, the vanity/advertising question seems clear. Paddles ^T_C 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Autopinger

Apparent vanispamcruftisement for not-notable webtool. 190 unique Google hits for this web-based product [12]. Google link search returns 0 hits [13]. Alexa rank = no rank [14]. Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Prod removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This site is a new technology of conducting blog ping and it is a new site that has not yet updated in google until the next google refresh. Google search for autopinger has 24,300 results. I m new to wikipedia and don't really know how to post this article but I m posting this article not for spamming, just to let people know that there is such a such technology. What are the guides that determine if the site could or not be listed in wikipedia? If it is based on Google statistics, then I m disappointed as I thought wikipedia is an open encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinsonwang (talk • contribs) .
• Delete as non-notable per nom, WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE. --Satori Son 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — same, please look at the relevent policy. Thanks for your interest in contributing to wikipedia! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wiki is open but it's not a blackhole. No prejudice for recreation if the technology gains traction. 205.157.110.11 06:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't this just what RSS does? --Xrblsnggt 18:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - if we just relied on Google for the information on this site, why have this Wikipedia at all?Intellectualprop2002 00:04, 23 August 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 keep. —Mets501 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LOVE and SUICIDE

Not many Google hits. JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep new film from Lisa France, and starring Luis Moro both of whom appear notable enough. Kamar De Los Reyes is probably not so notable, only having had a series of walk-on roles in TV series, but the whole thing passes by my reckoning. Ohconfucius 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Probably won't be an international blockbuster but it's as notable as any other indi-arthouse type film. It could certainly use some style and format clean up. 205.157.110.11 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep non-vanity films, but the article needs work. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NOT, in that Google ("love and suicide") is not showing multiple non-trivial third-party articles about the movie. Yes, the movie is just out, and that's the point - WP is not a crystal ball and we don't know if the film is going to be notable yet. Comments the film is "as notable as any other indi-arthouse type film" only begs the question, since being an indie film isn't innately notable, nor is being a non-vanity film (which I'm pretty sure is not part of WP guidelines). I'm actually seeing a lot of Ghits, but mainly movie listings. Tychocat 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Some facts on Love and Suicide: 1) Kamar de los Reyes is international soap star on One Life to Live for 13 years. (2) He was one of People Magazines sexiest Latinos in 2005. (3) Kamar has been and is constantly in many national magazines, TV host shows, radios shows, etc. Hence, Kamar is a very well know actor. (4) AMC Theatres picked up Love and Suicide to screen under thier AMC Theatres SELECT program. The film is currently in it's second week in Miami and AMC committed to expanding to other theaters starting next week. - Please note: Love and Suicide beat out films by major studios competing for the screen time in AMC Theaters. (5) Love and Suicide is currently screening in it's 8th week in Santa Fe, New Mexico. That is 6 weeks more than the theater first booked it for. (6) There are several more commerical theaters as well as film festivals and film socities that had and continue to garner LS the highest ratings possible. (7) LS cast is currently booked for several interviews on television shows and radio for next week. (8) We have had many articles in many forms (newspapers, magazines, blos, newsletters, websites), included two interviews on NBC. (9) LS is the first feature narrative film to be made in Cuba by a 100% American production company, in 47 years, (per Miami Herald, NBC and The Associated Press - Havana office), we believe that in itself sets it a part from any other film made. More items could be listed. Ideally the above will offer a fair case for someone to make an equitable decision when it comes to forming an opinion on Love and Suicide. We look forward to your thoughts upon seeing Love and Suicide on the big screen. Best regards, Bobbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbiLou (talk • contribs)

• comment - WP is also not a newspaper, nor a free webhost. This has nothing to do with the artistic merits of the film or its actors or production crew. You may want to see the WP guidelines regarding notability to see what I'm referring to. Also, I note six distinct Google hits where Youtube, Rottentomatoes and a fanpage have been given video from "bobbilou" - are you an employee of the production company? Tychocat 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not a guideline, and there's sort of a bias in Wikipedia when it comes to big Hollywood productions versus indie-arthouse films. For every big studio movie that's released, there's an article, even though many are forgotten in the same year, and will not be remembered nor notable in 5 years time. Wiki is not paper, so I think there's no harm in keeping both articles about big studio movies that might be forgotten and movies like this. --Clementduval 05:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree that their is a bias but I would stem that more from the fact that there really hasn't been a guideline laid out for the notability of small-budget indie films. For me, personally, distribution and screening is the key. However, I would like to see more discussion on the matter 205.157.110.11 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - proof that the Google hits thing is bogusIntellectualprop2002 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Enough notable people involved to make it notable.--Runcorn 20:32, 24 August 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 Keep souces have been added. Eluchil404 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delfi.lt

Spam. Ny866 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral This could possibly be the Lithuanin version of CNN.com-hard to say from the website and any English language ghits. 205.157.110.11 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Should stay. This not only main news portal in Lithuanian net, but most popular Lithuanian site all together. Also it is important factor of popular and internet culture in Lithuania. Because users can comment every news story, this site is constantly subject of debate over freedom of speech in Lithuania. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, judging from the number of links it's not that marginal. Besides, this AfD was Ny866's first edit in wikipedia ever, which makes me think that he/she might be working for the competitors simply. //Halibutt 09:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - main website in Lithuania. It might be poorly written, but it is importan subject. And it has alexa rank of 1,102. Renata 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment - In the course of a half-hour in Ny866's first-ever edit session, he visited seven articles, tagging three for deletion, two for copyvio, and two for speedy deletion (one of these latter had the speedy tag removed without comment by the contributor; he gives no reason for the speedy on the other article). I haven't examined all the noms, but I will note Alexa rates Delfi.lt at 1,102, which is frankly the highest rating I've seen in researching these noms. Tychocat 11:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - as per Renata. eLNuko 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Main Lithuanian news portal, one of the most popular Lithuanian-language sites. It needs a re-write. Andrius 11:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• What it needs, and what this AFD discussion needs too, are sources. How are non-Lithuanians to know that this is the "main website in Lithuania"? Solely because the article says so? Please cite sources. Taking editors' words for things is what we specifically do not do around here. A boatload of editors coming to AFD and saying "This is an important web site." does not an argument make. Please cite sources to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, Alexa traffic rating is 1,102 [15], Statbrain.com shows an average of 1,649,617 visits per day [16], Google shows 12,400 sites linking to delfi.lt [17], Yahoo brings up 693,841 sites linking to Delfi.lt [18] Altavista shows 266,000 sites linking to delfi.lt. BBC country profiles shows Delfi as on of 3 "News agencies/internet"[19]. I hope that that's enough. Andrius 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that is not enough. Did you read the links he gave? This fails WP:V because no sources are cited, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Citing web stats is only for backing up an already strong arguement...not to stand alone AS and arguement. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only one of those that is a good start is the last. (The rest are just statistics that are as unreliable as the Search engine test.) But all that it says is "news portal". Please find something that describes this site in more than two words. This is Wikipedia, not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need to be able to have an entry longer than "mostly harmless". ☺ It needs to be shown that there are the sources available to do that. Uncle G 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • An archived article on Delfi has a list of the most popular Lithuanian webistes in terms of unique visitors and it shows that it is, in fact, the most popular Lithuanian-language webiste in terms of unique visitors with 697,752. The research was carried out by Gemius Baltic. The news-story (which is already cited in the article) can be found HERE. Oh and the study was carried out in May of 2006. That isn't exactly what you asked for but I think it is still useful. Andrius 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason that WP:WEB excludes material that is from the subect itself is that it isn't necesarily trustworthy. You're looking for the right sort of thing, though. Here are some hints on where to look: Do the Baltic Times, VŽ, Respublika, or other newspapers have any feature articles about this web site? Has anyone done a study of Lithuanian web sites in a journal article that discusses this web site in detail? Is this news service discussed in studies of Lithuanian news media? Uncle G 20:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • http://gemius.com/English/sub.php?id=ofirmie_pre&idm=ofirmie#20051021 article "Spring vs. summer" confirms stats Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Unlike AndriusG, you're looking for the wrong thing. That article just includes a name check. It doesn't even say what delfi is. I repeat: Please find something that describes this web site in more than two words, to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please read the hints for doing so given above. Uncle G 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
            • http://www.ebiz.lt/article.php3/18/5306/4 Says it is the biggest entertainment and news portal. Role in society: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=9447611 (this is nice one: Prosecutors first learned that mobster escaped from house arest from anonymous comments on Delfi.) Freedom of speech: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=9915197 Members of Parliament want to curb freedom of speech regarding internet comments.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Those articles are on the web site itself. A web site talking about itself isn't a reliable source. Please look for someone else writing about this web site, per the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The site seems notable enough based on the statistics and other sites linking to it. Yes, citations are needed, but AfD is for deleting pages about non-notable subjects, not for deleting articles that are missing citations. Paddles ^T_C 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are missing the point. We have, as with so many AFD discussions about web sites, a whole raftload of editors coming to the AFD discussion and arguing nothing more than "This is an important web site.". This is not an argument. Whether something is important to individual Wikipedia editors is not a criterion for either inclusion or deletion. It isn't an argument that is acceptable when a load of forum participants come to defend an article on their discussion forum, and it isn't acceptable here. As we regularly point out to the discussion forum participants, the way to argue for keeping the articles on their discussion fora is to cite sources and show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. This should be easy if the web site is as notable as you claim it to be, so please do it. Otherwise, the closing administrator has nothing more to go on than yet another AFD discussion where there is nothing more than a boatload of editors asserting "This is an important web site." and citing no sources, or indeed saying no more than that bare assertion and not basing their arguments upon our policies and guidelines. Such discussions usually end in deletion. Uncle G 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Paddles that is incorrect. I have seen plenty of AfD's closed as 'Delete' for articles that are missing citations and/or sources. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm having a hard time getting worked up about it, but no sources means no entry. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per failing WP:V. None of the keep noms brought multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties to the table, to meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. I'm only willing to go so far to try beef up an article that the original writer won't. Tychocat 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Biggest Internet Community in Baltic States" (http://www.eadp.org/index.php?q=node/12730) from European Association of Directory and Database Publishers article (in English).
  • Freedom of speech. Delfi (Estonia)article (in English) "Parliament fails to adopt controversial bill on censoring webcommentators" (http://www.balticbusinessnews.com/newsletter/060518_bbn_newsletter.pdf) That should do it I think.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is only up for deletion thanks to Systematic bias. Alexa Ranks this as the 3rd most popular :ithuanian website, and gives it a respectable global rank of around 1,100. There are references too, which is the most important thing, even though the sources are little known to most people in english-speaking lands. Bad nomination? LinaMishima 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No. The article cited no sources at all at the time of nomination. Uncle G 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• After some prodding and encouraging editors in the right direction, this article now cites sources that demonstrate that this web site satisfies the PNC in WP:WEB by being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources other than Delfi, including a conference paper about news media companies in the Baltic states. Keep. Uncle G 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Earle's Curve of Predictive Reliability

NN and not verifiable, OR claim by obscure speculator JQ 05:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - coined in 2004 with 43ghts (nearly all wiki-related). 205.157.110.11 05:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The 43 Ghits referred above actually distill down to only 9 distinct Ghits, all WP mirrors. No multiple third-party articles to shore up notability. Tychocat 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ST47 11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, and an attempt to give a fancy mathematical name for something inherently unquantifiable. Coinage by some speculator, so suspect spam as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Tychocat. Paddles ^T_C 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - idea is legitimate and can be tied in to the wisdom of crowds. Intellectualprop2002 00:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Meta Anime Review Project

Spam. nn websites. Ny866 05:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Animecruft 205.157.110.11 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY, WP:SPAM, WP:NN ST47 11:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete non-notable (although admittedly only using the criteria "I've never heard of it"), more importantly the current article is half vanity and half linkfarm. Also.. how can a website be considered as being in "beta" for two years? Shiroi Hane 01:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 04:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident

This event is not notable enough for a separate article. In fact, it probably isn't notable at all as the publicity from it lasted for about a week. At most, it might get a mention in a trivia section on GWB's page (much like his father's vomit episode in Japan has on GHWB's page), but again, I don't think the bike accident is worthy of any mention. Cjosefy 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - a clear case of "recentitis". No one is going to care about this next month, much less for posterity. I don't even think this worth noting on the GWB trivia section. 205.157.110.11 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• How about a smerge with Dick Cheney hunting accident, since this article points to the connection between the two events? It can be an aftermath section (as opposed to a trivia section somewhere else- no article should have a trivia section). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that. The Cheney incident is slighty more notable because he shot someone, but it still doesn't need a huge article with 61 sources (as it is now). I would like to see this NN minutia purged from Wikipedia. Plus, the connection drawn between the two articles is VERY weak and is probably POV. Cjosefy 07:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely, who cares. Gazpacho 08:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• If this was about some guy called Alexander McTavish falling off his bike it would be nn. It's just as nn when it's about Bush falling off his. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Come on, we are not going to cover every freak accident happened to Bush nor any of his health problms unless it is really serious or captured the public imagination --Ageo020 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, anon205, Ageo. Paddles ^T_C 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need an encyclopedia article for every hiccup by every world leader. Gerald ford fell several times, even leading to regular skits about the falls by Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live. That might be a better candidate. Is there an article for John Kennedy's sore back? Eisenhower's heart attack? If so there should not be. There would not in a real encyclopedia. If the episode is of some llight significance, add a sentence to the GE Bush article.Edison 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As the article's creator you can consider me slightly biased, but it did trigger two cycles of newscoverage, effectively dominating the coverage of the G8 summit the first time, and then another flurry when the police report came out. Notability does not come and go, if Bush's hiccups or Gerald Ford's falls got 284,000 google hits, then we should probably have an article about them as well. What about merging this into an article for all of Bush's bicycle accidents—he's had nearly a dozen, all of which get some news coverage, although this is probably the most notable, save the one at his ranch during the Sheehan thing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if Google was around back during the Ford administration, then this would be a valid argument. He is the CURRENT President, so it is no surpise that it gets a lot of hits. Do you honestly think this will be remembered in 20 years? Can you honestly say notability doesn't come in go (especially when you use Google as the measure)? Cjosefy 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. I can honestly say that for the purposes of WP, notability does not come and go. It's a shame that there was net less media back during the Ford Administration, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that we should censor present events in proportion to the increase in media coverage from notable and verifiable sources. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So, if there was Google back during Fords admin, then you'd want an article on him being clumsy? This is ridiculous. We don't need a detailed account of every tiny thing the President does. You can find many news articles on every single daily activity of the President. Do we need articles for every banquet he attends, speech he gives, or jog he takes? Maybe we do because there is no shortage or verifiable sources that report on these things. Cjosefy 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if another topic had as many references and citations as this one, there would be no question. Sparsefarce 18:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe anyone's challenging the accuracy. Gazpacho 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about the mass media coverage. Sparsefarce 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In the current online age, if the President of the United States does ANYTHING, you'll be able to find 1000s of reputable sources from the 1000s of legitimate newspapers, tv stations, etc. online. Cjosefy 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You're just wrong. Things only get picked up by multiple media sources when they are notable. What's more, this had two distinct periods of coverage. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • OK. I look forward to your article on when he choked on a pretzel, or perhaps the medical results from his colonoscopy. It seems naive to think that only notable events get picked up by multiple news sources. Do we want articles on every flash in the pan news story? Surely you admit that every week plenty of stories get picked up all over the country, and the world that are big for a week and then go away. I doubt that in 5 years you'll be able to find your vaulted 240,000 hits. Cjosefy 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per savidanBakaman _Bakatalk 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Savidan. Any time a major world leader directly inflicts severe bodily harm on someone else, I think it's pretty notable. Nice referencing as well, per Sparcefarce. Irongargoyle 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Directly inflicts severe bodily harm"? Did you read the article? Cjosefy 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Sparsefarce and Savidan, though I do somewhat favor a merge into an article about all of Bush's bicycling accidents. Srose (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The incident is probably mildly notable, but at Wikinews and not in an encyclopedia. Sandstein 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Savidan. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong utter delete O puhlease! Is this an encyclopaedia or are we going into Ripley's Believe it or not territory. Utterly unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a blog, a news service or anything like that. It is an encyclopaedia where we should have encyclopaedic articles covering important people, history, art, science etc. Not someone bicycle accident!--Kalsermar 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- rubbish, complete and utter. Astrotrain 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This should go into the GWB article or possibly into a 'GWB accidents' article. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Savidan, although I would also be happy to see this material merged into one article covering all of his bicycle-related incidents. --Mais oui! 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into George W Bush DXRAW 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into George W Bush. This information is a funny incident, and a story about it is not unwarranted. Obviously, not the most important incident with regards to George Bush, however a noteworthy story that is worthy of retention under the grounds of trivia. Nlsanand 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Has it occured to anyone that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia? Funny stories and trivia don't belong here.Kalsermar 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. Vegaswikian 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bush accidents and mishaps (and Iraq) will be the main things he will be remembered for Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per cjosefly Intellectualprop2002 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Purely of ephemeral interest.--Runcorn 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dekimasu 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into George W Bush if it is needed there.--Konstable 00:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does not require a separate article. - David Oberst 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

TLV CO., LTD.

Non-notable Companies. Google 886 hits, Japanese Wikipedia as non article. Ny866 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spam at best. 205.157.110.11 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. joshbuddy, talk 07:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comments (1) What is a non-notable company? (2) Usual search term would be TLV Co. Ltd, not the japanese you used. (3) Japanese wikipedia article can be provided. What else is required from us? Is the company too small or is it a problem with the content of the description? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaccraven (talk • contribs) .

WP:CORP is a good start. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Value Investing Congress

Commercial promotion, NN JQ 06:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spamgasmic. 205.157.110.11 06:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adtastic. --Daniel Olsen 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete joshbuddy, talk 07:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spammish vanity per nom and as per WP:NN and WP:SPAM ST47 11:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 14:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- how to make money in the market? Get suckers investors to pay for your seminar. NawlinWiki 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I found a reference to the Value Investing Congress in the New York Times. See http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jenny_anderson/index.html?offset=80&inline=nyt-per TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Libharu

nn Software, Google 885hits. Dey68 07:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 07:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE 205.157.110.11 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ST47 11:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Paddles ^T_C 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Das art

nn companies. Dey68 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put more effort into your nominations. Using AfD jargon ("nn", in particular) makes you look lazy and ill-bred, confuses new users (particularly new users who want to know why you want to delete their work), and will cause pretty girls to hate you and your car keys to go missing even though you just put them down a second ago. Far better, for your reputation, your health, and your love-life, to instead explain why you want something deleted in simple and polite English. A bit of detail won't go astray, either. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just clicking "edit" to encourage you along the same lines. When asserting that something is "non-notable", please always link to the notability criteria that you are using and explain how the subject does not satisfy those criteria. Uncle G 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 07:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the internationally reknown sculptor behind it isn't so internationally reknowned. 205.157.110.11 08:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Daslete Danny Lilithborne 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ST47 11:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable per anon205, also vanity. Paddles ^T_C 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, and failing WP:VAIN. I think that it also fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't violate WP:CORP or WP:VAIN (well, not without ... no, never mind). WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc. are guidelines to give an indication of what sort of articles the Wikipedia community is likely to accept. If a band passes WP:MUSIC, this means the article is likely to be welcome ... however, there's no reason to keep just because it passes WP:MUSIC, or delete just because it fails. If that weren't enough, guidelines like WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC are all about inclusion, not exclusion. We don't shop around for applicable guidelines and say, "you must pass each of these, or we'll dip you in boiling lava!" (Instead we say, "if you can pass just one portion of one of these, you'll be spared the boiling lava ... for now!"). As for the article being written by someone connected with the subject ... well, "vanity" is not and has never been a reason for deletion. It can be a reason why an article is crap, and that crappiness then becoming a reason for deletion, but if that's what you want to argue it would serve you well to make this explicit instead of mumbling about "violations" and "creepy aliens in my underwear" and other such nonsense. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, and WP:NN is also a guideline (one that is being used to justify this article's deletion). However, I use these guidlines to clearly show other voters why I think an article should be deleted. Just because the guidlines are intended for inclusion, not exclusion, it does not mean that we can't say, "Hey, take a look at these. This article meets none of them, therfore I believe it to be un-encyclopedic, and should be deleted.". However, you are right in saying that it can't technically violate these guidline, therefore I've changed to fails. Happy editing to you too ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Mets501 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marla Weech

Contested PROD. Nonnotable local newscaster; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:BIO. User:Angr 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems that she possibly meets the criteria of WP:BIO under: Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions., specifically Name recognition. I think after 20 years in broadcasting she marginally meets these requirements, but I'm not sure. --Daniel Olsen 07:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. Regional broadcasters have notability as evident by all the Buffalo/Philadelphia/Baltimore newcasters that have passed AfD in the last 30 days. I cleaned the article up a little bit, removing some of the most blatant POV-cruft and tagging the items that could be very notable (like being part of the highest ranking anchor pair) IF it can be verified. 205.157.110.11 08:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - her notability depends on the claims being sourced (as helpfully highlighted). If they are I will change my view but until then not-notable. I suggest AfD extended to give time for sourcing. BlueValour 04:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Of only local notability.--Runcorn 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage by significant, third-party sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quickerwit

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Only 100 unique ghits, although 25000 raw hits. No independent coverage as far as I can see. Current entry is a blatant advert, not to mention a copyvio since the content is exactly that of the official webpage of the service. Pascal.Tesson 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Spamgasmic. 205.157.110.11 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Adtastic. --Daniel Olsen 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanitiferous. Danny Lilithborne 09:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamish vanity per nom, anon110.11, daniel olsen, and danny lilithborne and as per WP:SPAM, WP:NN, and WP:VANITY ST47 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Advertising AlexTiefling 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And The World Goes 'Round

This seems to be an collection of information about a show which combines the tunes of 3 shows. Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary, and all the other things wiki is not. Ohconfucius 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT... whatever this is. --Daniel Olsen 08:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cruft-kind of-cruft. 205.157.110.11 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Almost speedyable under A1. Although it just about scrapes through the "very short" criterion, it certainly has little or no context. If author would care to add something to say why this is in the least notable, i'll change my view, otherwise, delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• It seems pretty clear to me: Kander and Ebb are a famous songwriting duo, kinda like Gilbert and Sullivan except not as good. And the World Goes 'Round is one of their musicals, and it's a sort of Broadway version of the popular best-of compilation format. The show itself is notable, and while the article could certainly stand some improvement, I don't see why it needs deletion at this point. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain where in the article Broadway is mentioned. It says "it's a revue". Which could cover anything from Broadway to a troupe of 12-year-olds in their end of term play in Northampton. That's what I mean by context; if this is a notable Broadway show revue it fails to establish that. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears from the Kander and Ebb article that they themselves wrote the revue - however, that is not only unclear from this article itself but not clear to me from a brief amount of off-WP research - i.e. I'm not sure whether it's actually true. Paddles ^T_C 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say you didn't read the related articles? I'll bow to Paddles' extra knowledge here, but you really should have at least read Kander and Ebb, Tony. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I read it but missed that reference, sadly. Changing to Weak keep per fuddlemark above and Metropolitan90 below, Tonywalton  | Talk 10:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless Kander and Ebb's authorship of the revue itself (not just all the songs it is made up of) can be verified, in which case I'd change to weak keep. Paddles ^T_C 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In musical theatre, a "revue" is usually pretty much just a performance of a group of songs. There usually is no script or book, except maybe intros for the songs. Fan-1967 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable revue. See this New York Times review in support of its notability. --Metropolitan90 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note, I've made some edits to include information about awards this revue won when it ran off-Broadway. --Metropolitan90 07:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability. will381796 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Auckland Stereotypes

Stereotypes are not encyclopedic, and this article is not referenced. A similar section in the Auckland article was removed earlier; see [20] and Talk:Auckland#Social_perceptions_section_-_removed. Delete.-gadfium 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete very POV driven. I can see some merit in a referenced section of Sterotypes in the main Auckland section but those references would have to be pretty darn reliable. 205.157.110.11 09:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of references. -- Avenue 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some of it is true, but I think some of it is covered in Bombay Hills. on bombay hills article, it does say that the hills are an imaginary border between auckland and the rest of the country. But to say that most aucklanders drive SUV's or gas guzzlers is really a biased comment. --Ageo020 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stereotypes can indeed be encyclopaedic; however, this article cites no sources and appears to be original research. A well-sourced, well-written article about the stereotypes commonly applied to Aucklanders (assuming that these stereotypes are worth knowing about) would not go astray, but this is not it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, unverified, and possibly OR. Paddles ^T_C 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - it can be recreated if reliable sources are found. WilyD 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Exactly per nom; took the words out of my mouth - GIen 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Where documentable, stereotypes are encyclopaedic. WilyD 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely I agree 110%. However this article is completely unsourced and to be honest I am not sure where one could find sources sufficient to meet WP:V on this subject. I have looked online and the pages online all seemed to be a mirror of our Jafa article which obviously doesn't get us very far. I will give it some thought and have a hunt around however - GIen 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I also seriously doubt Aukland Stereotypes will ever pass WP:V. This one certainly doesn't WilyD 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The only source shown is a Wikipedia article. What it needs is verifiable material from reliable sources such as books, journals, magazines and newspapers showing that these are stereotypes of Auckland held by other New Zealanders. Capitalistroadster 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Jafa. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Michael Hays 16:51, 22 August 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 userfy and delete from mainspace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Gary Jacobsen

The more I look at this, the more it looks like vanity. It was created by user Gary Jacobsen (talk · contribs) and it links to his personal web page. Userfication may be appropriate. Discuss: --Xrblsnggt 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• thats completely heartwarming, but Delete. Userfication would be fine. --Musaabdulrashid 10:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• No it isn't, per WP:AFD and {{vanity}}. Userfy, though I note a small and unreferenced assertion of notability in that While teaching, he authored two award-winning books: Spokesman for the People and Grammar for Everyone. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Spokesman for the people" is ASIN: B0006R1YCU and seems extremely nn --Musaabdulrashid 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Grammer for Everyone" is equaly so and ASIN: B0006RMYTM. Both books are listed by slightly different titles on amazon, though that may be normal. --Musaabdulrashid 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity per nom ST47 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete per nom unless the awards can be verified - in which case weak keep with cleanup required. Paddles ^T_C 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only Google hits for either book title and Jacobsen are this Wikipedia page. Even if they've won "awards", I'd wager they weren't notable awards. --Geoffrey Spear 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:BIO (non notable) and WP:VAIN. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, Non-notable as per above. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not as an author, but for "Operation Pegasus," which is seen as very important by quite a few conspiracy theorists. There were several operations by that name, so Google isn't very helpful. If the subject worked as closely with George HW Bush on this as he says, he's probably notable. So keep for now and try to get the author to expand and verify. VivianDarkbloom 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy until notability can be verifiably established. Yamaguchi先生 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, no assertion of notability. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosher_komedy

Article about a person with no assertion of notability. Unsure if the article qualifies for a speedy delete, but if it does, it would fall under CSD A7. Kyra 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 Petros471 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Beds Herts and Cambs Land Rover Club

Not encyclopedic Delete -Doc 10:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not another one of these, It reads like a copyvio. I would say speedy, but its already here. --Musaabdulrashid 10:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Try http://www.bhclrc.org.uk/about.htm May fail as a candidate for copyvio in that there's no copyright notice on there, and they may not qualify for {{db-copyvio}} as they may not qualify as a "commercial content provider. Speedy delete as {{nn-club}} anyway. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ST47 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Paddles ^T_C 13:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NN. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As Tony points out, AfD is not the place to try to delete redirects. Beside the point, but a useful bit of info if you're planning to go to RfD, is that typo redirects are extremely useful and attempting to delete one is Very Silly. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian Chinesea

typo. hence, delete __earth ^(Talk) 10:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment belongs at Redirects for Discussion, not here. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Celticminded

WP:WEB. 'Nuff said. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep No case made by nominator. Tremendously popular website in the UK, the busiest of its kind I believe. --No Username 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: No Username (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment Yes, I know. Personally, I would have thought it would have been evident from my username. Some people may say the same of you. --No Username 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I get the feeling the nominator is of Ibrox orientation TgC19 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TgC19 (talk • contribs) . User's 4th and 5th edits are to this AfD
• Delete 796 google hits, 74 unique ST47 11:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Evidence needs to be given for popularity claims. JPD (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to follow WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:CITE guidelines, Fails WP:V, and sections of WP:OR. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Which particular parts of those guidelines did you have in mind?
• Delete Unless there is some verification of its notability. Sparsefarce 18:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's why the {fact} tag is there. --No Username 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --M@rēino 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website, fails all three criteria listed in WP:WEB. Alexa.com ranking only 65,613 [21]. Should probably have been speedied under WP:CSD #A7. Qwghlm 10:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam and and not notable outside of fans of one UK club. --Xrblsnggt 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me. Iolakana•T 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tramlines

Non-notable high school band. Fireplace 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete High school band? Fails WP:BAND as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JPD (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, so tagged, no assertion of notability (one self-produced EP that "sold well at shows" is not an assertion of notability in my book). NawlinWiki 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Telenovela (good band)

Non-notable "good" band. Dancarney 11:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable (Google search yields other bands of the same name), pointless article. Paddles ^T_C 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BAND as non notable. Also fails WP:VAIN. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as possibly the most obvious vanity article I've ever seen... also fails WP:BAND. Srose (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline speedy. NawlinWiki 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else basically. Homestarmy 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant WP:VANITY, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah ha ha! They get points for making me laugh today. I love the (good band) tag. Oh, and if it wasn't obvious, my vote is Delete. Sparsefarce 18:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Telenovela (bad band). OK, OK, I kid. Delete. Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and because the title renders the article irreversibly POV. --Xrblsnggt 18:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Petros471 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach

Funny one :-) nn-vaninonsense. The author "cleverly" created the article with a {{prod}} tag, waited until the article had disappeared from new article patrollers' radar, then deleted the prod tag. Technically a deprod so here we are. Weregerbil 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Articles once deleted can be speedied if recreated in the same form. Tintin (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The author has continued adding nonsense like how this person fought Atilla the Hun and such, and tried to remove the AfD template. Outright hoaxery that deserves speedying under {{db-bio}}. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, screw "deserves". I've speedy tagged it myself. Let's not drag this out any longer than necessary. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as recreated content. Salt the earth if necessary. Childish schoolboy nonsense. Block authors if it shows up again. Fan-1967 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a hoax. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material. This has been deleted twice now. Salt the earth and ban the creator. -- Merope 13:07, 18 August 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 redirect to Couch potato. --CharlotteWebb 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mouse potato

While this is a valid phrase in the dictionary, I don't see how this becomes anything more than a mere dic-def. The entry in Wiktionary already has more info so there's nothing to transwiki. Apparently it can't be prod'd because it was nominated for VFD three years ago. Delete as WP is not dictionary. Wickethewok 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wickethewok. Nothing more to be said on the subject that is not on wikionary. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--M@rēino 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to couch potato. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Antaeus. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think even a redirect is useful, as it is in Wiktionary.--Runcorn 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanglefish

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1,760,217. Contested prod. Geoffrey Spear 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence presented or found from reliable sources that subject meets WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sprugli

Non-notable neologism. 186 Ghits, most of which are related to a chocolate manufacturer and not the subject of the article. Geoffrey Spear 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. JPD (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT for things made up in one day at day camp, as stated in the article. NawlinWiki 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of things begin life as "made up". This is an experiment and I feel this page should be remain here for posterity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.241.224 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:NEO. To the anon: Lots of things do start out as made up, but Wikipedia only accepts articles on encyclopedic articles - things that have affected society, law, history, large amounts of people and things that will unquestionably be remembered in at least 50 years. This word isn't in widespread usage and could easily disappear in a month. Srose (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruben villanueva

Allegedly a Honduran Colonel, but I find no sources. One web result returns something related to Ruben Villanueva + Honduras, but states it is a Mexican soldier, not a Honduran officer. Apart from that, no sources that apparently relate to it. Creator's only contribution. --Thunderhead 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - possibly true (the organization's history doesn't discount it) but WP:OR and non-notable. Yomangani^talk 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yomangani. Paddles ^T_C 04:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PodSpot

Spammy spammy spam spam. Prod removed by author. Non-notable, advertising, vanity, you name it. -- Merope 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam neologism. JPD (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to top it off it's OR as well. GrahameS 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, podvertising. NawlinWiki 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VSCA? Thε Halo ^Θ 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per all above. will381796 21:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 04:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Scott D. White (computer scientist)

NN biography. Possibly vanity, as subject of article shares surname of author. I requested an SD (per CSD A7), but was changed to prod by another editor. Prod then removed by author. -- Merope 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like a CV, and 7 publications doesn't seem enough to count as notable. JPD (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought there was enough assertion of notability to not be A7, but agree not notable enough to have an article, unless it can be pointed out why those publications are significant. Petros471 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Revision notes by author. Sorry, I am a bit new (two weeks old) to writing for Wikipedia, but I have added occassional sites particularly to recognize the major and important contributions of some of my coauthors, and this is one of them. My initial draft WAS more like the CV that I was referencing. You are correct to pick that up, and the immediate feedback helped. Thats one of the great things about Wikipedia, in fact. In this edition, which still needs work but I will now leave alone for a bit for the review process, I bring out the importance of the work. Sorry -- I misunderstood about the remove of the prod, thought after the first revision it could be removed. Work and learn perhaps better than no input at all. For sake of complete disclosure, Scott White is my son, but is a major figure in his own right in computer science (and industry) and the collaboration that we did was a huge contribution to the sciences and to the network field. At some point I have to do a writeup for Wikipedia on the major significance of that work. He was the one, after the initial conception, who programmed and conceptualized the formalisms behind the simulation. In a reedit it would be good to work in the contributions to industry (several were major) and fit in the educational background in a more Wikipedia-approproate way. Thanks for bearing with me through the revision. --Douglas R. White 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Prod tags can be removed by the author; you didn't err in doing so. I just mentioned it in the nomination for deletion to be thorough. However, I'm not sure that a person who is all-but-dissertated and isn't a primary co-author on a few academic papers is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. This is not to disparage your son or his works, but WP has standards about what constitutes a notable person and I don't think his works satisfy those conditions yet. -- Merope 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Can you provide a third party source that says that he is notable in some way? Generally people writing about themselves/people close to them is discoraged because they can be biased. It might be better if you write something on your userpage(s) and let others write the article. Petros471 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One can write about one's relatives in Wikipedia, but there is only one way to do so: One must write everything based upon published third party sources, cite all of those sources right from the very first edit, and be absolutely scrupulous about not using any firsthand knowledge or unsourced information at all. If one cannot do that, then one must not write. Please see User:Uncle G/On notability#Tips_for_editors. Uncle G 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The massive conflict of interest means this biography needs to be restarted from scratch by a 3rd party because it reads like Wikipedia:Vanity in its current state. Lack of 3rd party reliable sources apart from a listing of his research papers mean it's also hard to verify his notability. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like bright graduate student with some decent publications and work experience, but I don't see anything exceptional or notable here. Also looks a bit too much like a monster.com résumé posting. Fan-1967 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO due to lack of WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. That an article was created as an autobiography doesn't keep anyone from fixing it. However, I've checked for citations to these papers at citeseer and the ACM archive, and "minor classic" might be a stretch. Gazpacho 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm still not convinced he passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) either. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Uncle G and Netsnipe, without prejudice. Paddles ^T_C 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Documentation I have tried to carefully document everything in the writeup, standardizze in wikipedia style, and to provide external references for bibliography items. Many extraneous items deleted (please delete the work history if it is irrelevant, I am not sure about that, I agree we dont want it to ready like a monster.com resume because of the precedent that would set) but I have stressed the the scientific importance of the work and the outside references for that. The entry should stand on the scientific contributions. Role in the Physics contribution (simulation) was major btw not minor. That contribution will probably receive a Wikipedia writeup that will stand beside the Small-world network model and the Scale-free network model entries. These are the big models in the networks literature --Douglas R. White 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and WP:VAIN. Wikipedia is not Monster.com --Xrblsnggt 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Documentation excellent discussion, without prejudice (I am new to Wikipedia so bear with me), In that light, I concur, and deleted the job-history related materials (I am working from the CV and the person being written about has no knowledge of the existence of this page. If the whole page is deleted, no problem]. By the academic criteria alone, above average level of recognition and signification of the work, being a professor myself and in a position to judge, the quality and recognition of the published contributions to computer science, mathematics, networks, open source code, and even physics, is way above that of the average college professor.--Douglas R. White 23:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reviews Sorry to be a pest in this way but I have now added reviews of two major articles, one in the physics journal and the other in SIAM proceedings which is a high-ranking peer reviewed publication ranking above most computer science journals, and usually reserved for high quality faculty publications (unusual in that it is a conference proceedings but having more prestige than most journals in the field). I think it would be useful at this point to find a physicist, a mathematician and/or computer scientist to review the publications for the Professor test WP:PROF. Then if there is agreement and one of them wants to revise and post the page, my version, which is still not well wiki-edited can be withdrawal. But this review process is of excellent quality, as a journal editor myself, an excellent peer review process. I have no qualms if it is deleted, that is normal in academic peer reviewed submissions. I just want to follow this to the end having begun it. --Douglas R. White 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A few things: was Scott ever involved with writing software to help visualize the connectivity of networks on the internet?

Another thing: I've read the paper "Generative Model for Feedback Networks" - It's quite interesting for me to see how some of Tsallis' ideas have propagated to all sorts of topics. One concern I have is that the model is pretty new - it's cutting edge, but it would probably be better to merge that information into a separate (possibly new) article on say, the History of network modelling. As a rule of thumb, Wikipedia tends to present topics proportional to the volume of existing work that is out there describing it.

One last thing: In my opinion, Wikipedia tends to lean on the side of conservativeness when it comes to notability. Yes, there are articles just like this one out there somewhere, but if we had a more efficient system of article review, they would also likely be deleted. The way this AfD is proceeding, it indicates that the community wants to have an article on a subject where the notability is more self evident. If this article were to exist on Wikipedia after this discussion, it would unlikely be developed into a more extensive article (say, like Richard Feynman) simply because there is a lack of information available, beyond what has been presented already.

In my opinion, another reason why this article was spotted for notability concerns to begin with, had to do with the style and approach used in the article. For example, there is a sentence that says:

His generalization of google-type PageRank algorithms for relative importance in networks and graphs represents an important advance for algorithms that run the central processes in the information economy.

As an example, in the typical WP:NPOV style of Wikipedian prose, the reader does not need to be told explicitly that algorithm X is an "important advance" - instead, the reader simply needs to be told that this person worked on generalizing PageRank algorithms for use in networks. This would be sufficient. As another example, the phrase "(a field founded by his coauthor)" suggests that the notability is conditional on that fact, which is also something to avoid. However, typically an article does not reach get to that state overnight - it usually takes months and months of revisions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist. If the article ends up being deleted, there are other things a Wikipedian can do, but I'll elaborate on this later when it's more appropriate to do so. --HappyCamper 04:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good questions, comments and suggestions. Pt 1: Scott wrote quite a few of the JUNG package programs that dealt with that particular question of visualization. I dont know the details tho -- to run JUNG you need to build your own Java front end (GUI) and that is beyond me. We would have to get Scott in on this (he hasnt a clue that I have tried to draft a presentation of his contributions) but if he did get involved he could explain what his contributions were.

pt 2, on the generative models article. You have what may be a better way for me to have written up that presentation: as a history of the the model classes, from small-world to scale-free to social-circle. Could be quite interesting presented that way, and could be short as well, although others might chime in on the variants and some of the issue involved. Since the first two have their own sites and you have read the paper on the third, this could be a joint venture. Usually takes me a bit to get the kinks out when writing.

pt 3, right, the SDWhite article would unfold more slowly, but somewhere I read too that we want to pick up on work that will be developing in the future and scott's work is one of these areas. As for the relative importance sentence, yes it was bad and I rewrote it. Your NPOV point is quite correct.--Douglas R. White 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked about part 1, because way back, I read in a magazine somewhere, that someone managed to create a meaningful "map" of the internet in a day, and this was something which was considered unfeasible. Perhaps this was in New Scientist or something like that. I will have to check. Actually, this is really drifting away from what an AfD is supposed to be for - stuff like this should be relegated back to the article talk page. --HappyCamper 10:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Periscope Press

advertising puff piece that reads like a press release. Unencyclopedic and does not appear to be at all notable. Spartaz 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) DELETE as nom --Spartaz 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, why'd you add this? AfD is not a vote, so I can't see what you have to gain beyond wasting a bit of time and Corrupting The Youth™. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I did this to clarify that I thought the article should be deleted. It's possible to nominate something while being neutral on whether it should exist or not. I don't know how that fits with policy but I'm sure I have seen it done. --Spartaz 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, seems to have published some books, but no verifiable info so far. JPD (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like a spamvertisment. Fails to cite any reliable sources ...or any sources at all. Fails WP:V and sections of WP:OR. If Fuddlemark does not understand the AfD process and why the nom did this (which I would have myself) then he needs to re-review the AfD guidelines. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I cannot find a listing for Periscope Press in the Yellow Pages Canada database at http://www.yellowpages.ca/ nor in the Canadian ISBN database at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/isbndir-bin/isbn-search?p=0&l=0 There is or was a publishing company called Periscope Press in Wayzata, Minnesota which published a book about cochlear implants, but that doesn't sound like the one described in the article. Perhaps the Canadian company has its phones and its ISBN numbers listed under a different name. Or maybe it doesn't exist. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Inside The Console

Not quite speedy A1. Suspect prod would just get removed, so AFD it is. Delete as nn spam. Petros471 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No indications of WP:WEB notability. --M@rēino 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely --Spartaz 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable podcast. NawlinWiki 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --SevereTireDamage 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Peephole 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Casper2k3 17:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Inside The Console has broadcast over 30 episodes. The content is distributed via an independent online broadcaster. The article is a neutral point of view. -- Kevin Kelly 21:25, 23 August 2006

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Potbanger

Neologism article. Unique Google hits for (potbangers -wikipedia) = 44 [22] (potbanger -wikipedia) = 67 [23]Fails: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, only one independent source given, and it didn't even use the specific term. NawlinWiki 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and wp is not a dictionary.
• Delete: OR, and the use of a fairly transparent metaphor does not make the metaphor instantly noteworthy. Delete unless more cowbell is added. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - this one seems clear enough that we don't need to spend much time on it. Friday (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikicars.org

Two-month-old website, no Alexa ranking. Lots of Ghits but you would expect that for a wiki site. NawlinWiki 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear failure of WP:WEB. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. I'd have speedied it myself, but since it's already on Afd.. Friday (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. My homepage is more notable. --Thunderhead 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Stacy Shields

Autobiography JoJan 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the comments below, I have taken the liberty of formally adding SShields Couture to the AfD. Paddles ^T_C 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia:Autobiography JoJan 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete along with SShields Couture as autobiography and ad respectively. Keresaspa 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with SShields Couture. Essentially self promotion Nigel ^(Talk) 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - self-promotion and non-encyclopedic. If they are fabulous and trend-setting, someone else will write an article about her and her company. -- nae'blis 15:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not assert notability. --Thunderhead 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, bio page fails WP:BIO and is possible WP:VANITY, and company page fails WP:CORP and is possible WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:BIO and WP:CORP. --TeaDrinker 07:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a copyvio. I won't object if it's restored as a free version. Yanksox 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Titan Radio

Smacks of copyvio, first person. This seems non-notable, merits a blurb in the CSU-Fullerton article maybe. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Correct it is a copyvio of http://titancom.fullerton.edu/titanradio/support.html - will take care of this now - GIen 15:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio.--Runcorn 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:COPYVIO. --Satori Son 23:55, 25 August 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 keep. Good work, Grutness. --CharlotteWebb 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandymouth Beach

CSD A7, no assertion of notability TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A7 applies to people, not places. No opinion on whether this beach is notable. NawlinWiki 15:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep. I've considerably expanded the stub, and its notability is a bit questionable, to say the least, but it is a real place. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep National Trust property. Article needed to help complete Category:National Trust properties in England. Metthurst 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep assertions that it is owned by the National Trust and popular with surfers should be sourced. Eluchil404 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a well-known beach; I'll add a source.--Runcorn 20:14, 24 August 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 Speedily redirected by Hydraton31.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Runnin' With The Devil

There is absolutely nothing in the article and there is nothing to be merged into the much better Runnin' With the Devil which contains all of the information already. --Hydraton31 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect. Not necessary for AFD. --Thunderhead 14:57, 18 August 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. The lack of participation makes this more of a case of editors thinking "too long; didn't read" than being actually representative of an issue with equal merits one way or the other. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

John McGinness

This is a vanity article by Peter Proctor aka Pproctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not about himself but about his colleague. All the references are to his own website, where you can buy hair loss shampoo for $109.95. The article claims no real notability; he has held no positions, been elected to scientific societies, won awards, and so on. I strongly suspect that the inbound links were also added by Pproctor (talk · contribs) who has been promiting himself incessently particularly by adding spam to Baldness treatments [24] and his cranky self-admitting whine that he was not awarded a Nobel Prize to the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies page. This users arrogance and contempt for Wikipedia policies is evident on his talk page where he insists that he is superior to everyone else because he has a Phd (apparently without consideration that others might too). — Dunc|☺ 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Should have known better. Anyway, Ducharis and I clashed over on Raymond Damadian and I made the error of revealing my true ID. Bad mistake, as events proved. Ever since he has been vandalizing pretty much everything I have posted on wiki that he can find. Erasiers, reversions, the whole bit. No good reasons and of stuff that nobody else has objected to. This last one just tears it. BTW, Ducharris in his rant missed the fact that I also am an MD, FWIW. Apparently others have had difficulty with Duch's erratic behavior. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture.

Anyway, it is difficult to see how a bio of a researcher I published a few papers with three decades ago is a "vanity article". The article is cited and linked ad nauseum. John McGinness PhD, MD is a major figure in organic electronics and arguably produced the first nanotech device. As if we need more endorsement-- This device is now in the Smithsonian instutions "Smithsonian chips" collection of early electronic devices. John's role in this field is generally acknowledged, e.g., in "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003). All completely in accord with the rules. Pproctor 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll confirm that the Ann NY Acad Sci article referenced above refers to McGinness, for those who don't have access, although it only references the McGinness, Corry, and Proctor paper (reference 2 in the McGinness article). It's not clear to me that this researcher passes WP:PROF. No vote. bikeable (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ann NY Acad Sci article on the history of Organic electronics says: "Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added)... This advance was made by McGinness,...." Pproctor 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

WP:PROF Criteria If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.

The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.

The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.

The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

---

• Delete Non-notable and does not pass WP:PROF. One of the 56 websites I found referrencing "'John McGinness' + Organic" (of which, only a few actually are about this individual) basically reads as if he is really bitter about not winning a Nobel Prize. Get over it. Many great discoveries do not get a nobel prize. will381796 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nobel business is a straw argument. If being angry because you didn't win a Nobel (actually he never promoted himself or his work, which is the problem) is a good reason, lets delete the Raymond Damadian and Herman Carr entries, to name just a couple that come to mind. The only issue at hand is whether John did what the record clearly indicates. Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not properly a vote, but in any case, please do not vote multiple times -- it gives the appearance of ballot stuffing. thanks. bikeable (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means qualified to make any type of determination as to whether his work is of Nobel quality or not. However, being nominated for a Nobel Prize is enough to be considered notable. Let me rephrase the above statement in that he is angry that he was not nominated for a Nobel. Every research scientists loves their work and feels that it is very important; otherwise, why do it? But the wonderful thing about science is the entire peer-review process. He could think his research is wonderful, etc. But that doesn't matter. We need to see multiple, verifiable sources say that this individual is a "Pioneer" in organic electronics. Most textbooks give a history of those scientists that played an important role in their field. A google book search shows zero quotes for "'John McGinness' + organics." If he was truly a pioneer, then he would certainly be more notable and discussed a great deal more. will381796 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First, after the 2000 Nobel business, John was nominated for a Nobel. By pioneering Melanin researcher Roberto Nicolaus, Head of the Accademia Pontanian in Naples. If memory serves, he is ex-officio a Noble nominator.

Second, John is like Herman Carr and figures making a fuss about "discovery credit" is, well, tacky. But even Carr finally came foreward, not to complain about the Nobel, but about getting deprived of credit for his discovery. I'm the pushy culprit here-- for years, I watched others take credit for stuff he had originally done and bugged him to step foreward, at least a little. When people he had a patent issue with won the 2000 Noble, I finally took matters in hand. Similarly, the issue is not the Nobel, but discovery credit. How would you like to discover something really important and then see somebody else grab credit for it?

Second, Hush in his PNYAS history of molecular electronics specifies it well. John was too early. BTW, this is not unknown--Gregor Mendel's work in classical genetics took 30 years to be recognized and Peyton Raus' 1910 discovery of a cancer virus in chickens waited even longer. This does not mean their discoveries were unimportant, Just too early.

Another major problem was Shirakawa et al, who came along three years later, rediscovered the high conductivity potential of the oxidized polyacetylenes and then proceeded to produce over 400 papers and patents with out a single reference to John's work. Under such circumstances, how could anybody coming later have known there was something prior to them? Also see Dulbecco's law. BTW, when I asked one of the Nobel winners about this situation and noted that we had sent them several letters, his dismissive reply was "Well, there's always history". Right about that.

The real problem was not missing a Nobel. As I keep being correctly reminded, that is just a matter of luck. The real issue was being completely stripped of any credit at all for an important discovery. Who gets the Nobel is a subjective judgement. However, here the 2000 Nobel citation is obviously factually incorrect. When I asked for a slight correction, noting our "prior art", I got the usual stony silence. The reputation for infallibility of the Nobel is more important to them than the true history of discovery.

More recently, my efforts have made people aware of this earlier work. Which is why you are now starting to see it referenced. BTW, if you want to see the references to Johns work, use "melanin" as a key word. The pigment cell people always knew about John. Same with people who work with the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, or bleomycin. Use those as keywords. Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question: McGinness JE would be considered notable under the proposed guidelines due to his publications if they are cited in other publications. Pproctor, do you have any examples of other papers that have cited any of his McGinness' publications? I fail to find any on PubMed, but that might not be surprising given the date of publication of some of the papers. will381796 23:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The paper in Science linked in this article, when you access it it on the Science website has at the end "This article has been cited by other articles" and goes on to list 3 articles from the past 5 years (of course, the Science website provides only a partial citation index). Robotforaday 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At the time of publications, the paper was also the subject of a Nature News and Views article. Here. There is also Nobel Physics prize winner Nevill Mott'sletter to John. It should be obvious that the work was pretty well-known at the time. But it disappeared from view when Shirakawa et al came on the scene. How they missed several prior key papers in Science and Nature I do not understand.

Use "melanin", adriamycin, cisplatinum (cisplatin) and bleomycin as keywords. Also see my comment above. Again, see Dulbecco's law-- Citations do not always correlate with priority of discovery. Which is what John unquestionably has.Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dr McGinness' work on the role of reactive oxygen species in the toxicity of cisplatin gave rise to 93 publications, according to a Pubmed search

• Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.

• Pubmed cites 101 references related to Dr Mcginness' paper "Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin", cite below.

Could give similar examples, ad nauseum.

• Given the above information and the fact that his publications are cited by others in his field, I change my opinion to keep.
• Keep. Not many papers, but Science, Nature & Lancet are all high profile, and the quotation from the recent review by Hush seems to assert the notability of the discovery. I'm puzzled as to why he's flitted between subjects that to me seem dissimilar, but perhaps an expanded article could address this. Espresso Addict 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • There are plenty other papers--40-50 plus, or so IIRC.. E.g., John and Retsuke Kono found that Melanin is by far the best sound-absorbing material known. (Kono, R. and McGinness, J.E.: "Anomalous Absorption and Sound in DBA Melanins". J. Applied Physics, 50(3): 1236-1244, 1979.}. This discovery alone ought to justify inclusion. I'll fill in the blanks if we get thru this silly deletion petition, which is part of an attack a cyberstalker is directing at me, not John.

• • As for the history of the device-- John was working in the Physics Department of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (which is where I got my PhD). The department had an interest in the physical properties of Melanin as a possible hook to treating melanoma. At the time nobody but cancer researchers had any reason to look at the electronic properties of the polyacetylene blacks. Otherwise, it was a complete backwater. So, they hired John, a "real' solid state physicist. Which is why, by a delicious irony, the generally-acknowledged first molecular electronic device came from a cancer hospital.

• • The device was a "proof of concept" to see whether John's theory of electronic conduction in such materials (published in Science in 1972) was correct. Ironically, the Nobel winners did it the other way-- they stumbled upon high conductivity in another oxidized polyacetylene and then developed a model (pretty much the same as John's with the addition of solitons for the special case of pure polyacetylene) to explain it.

• • Many anticancer drugs generate reactive oxygen species. So John was also looking at that too. All "physics". In a later reincarnation, John became a psychiatrist. Midbrain melanin is thought to play a role in psychiatric disease. So he also worked with psychiatric drugs. BTW, the inventor of the personal computor also eventually became a practicising physician. I'll expand upon John's interesting story later. Pproctor 13:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The process is not silly. It has a very important purpose of preventing Wikipedia from becoming a collection of worthless or incorrect or biased information. Because of the initial lack of sources and the very little information that could be found via google and other search engines, I can see why it was nominated. It is now clear that the article belongs, thanks to your providing additional sources as well as the digging deeper of other editors. This artile should be kept as long as it maintains NPOV and is based upon completely verifiable information, not just information that you know about because you work with him. will381796 16:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry the info was not complete and yes, I know about the importance of the vetting process. I was hit by this deletion petition only three-four days after initiating the entry and had only barely begun setting it up--not a lot of time to get it into shape. This petition is just harassment from somebody I got crosswise with and who has been systematically vandalizing whatever posts of mine he can find in some sort of sick game of retribution.

• IIRC, John has about 40-50 publications. I have only tracked down some of them. Hopefully the additional (if rather jumbled) information has been helpful. I will move it to the site ASAP. At least this got me organizing it. Also, uniquely with bios, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allows some limited use of personal communications from the subject. Pproctor 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and give the two mud wrestlers a 24-hour block for disruption. Edit wars should not be brought here. VivianDarkbloom 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: *Since when is a thorough debate "mud wrestling?" And what happened to assuming WP:Good_faith and don't WP:BITE the newcomers? Both of us have been completely respectful to the other's point of view, thank you. will381796 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

More reply

The exact exerpt from Hush's ANYAS article reads:

"Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor57 who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

Similarly, the abstract of the review article "The Function of Melanins" says:

" Aside from camouflage, its (melanins) other roles can be brought together by a unifying hypothesis as first proposed by .... and 'McGinness nearly 20 years ago."

WP:PROF likes multiple accomplishments. Remember, besides characterizing the electronic and physical properties of the melanins in these and later papers, John did two things WRT the gadget at issue. The first was to define conduction mechanisms in polyacetylene-like compounds (ref. 1). This is a large part of what Shirakawa et al got the Nobel for. BTW, they claim not to have seen John's previous analysis in Science. So these were independent developments.

The other was, as Hish notes, "the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device". That is, John occupies the same position in the history of organic electronics as the guys who built the first transistor. Nothing analogous showed up for a decade or two. John also got two patents for solid-state organic polymer batteries, at roughly the same time as did the Nobel winners. Interestingly, the description of the material they ended up using in their batteries is essentially identical to the one John started with in 1972.

Similarly, I haven't listed this yet, but John was also the first researcher to demonstrate that the toxicity of the anticancer drug cisplatin is due to generation of reactive oxygen species ROS, as well as the fact that the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, and bleomycin has an important extracellular component involving ROS. All avery big deals these days and by itself enough to qualify any researcher for WP:PROF. Similarly, John did signicant work on structured water (the basis of most MRI}, and the toxicity of certain psychiatric medications. Not bad for a solid-state physicist.

Also see the review article "The Function of melanin".

Additional Sample papers:

McGinness J, Kishimoto A, Hollister LE. Avoiding neurotoxicity with lithium-carbamazepine combinations. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1990;26(2):181-4.

McGinness JE, Grossie B Jr, Proctor PH, Benjamin RS, Gulati OP, Hokanson JA. Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1986;18(1):17-24.

McGinness J. A new view of pigmented neurons. J Theor Biol. 1985 Aug 7;115(3):475-6.

Gulati OP, Nordmann H, Aellig A, Maignan MF, McGinness J. Protective effects of O-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-rutosides (HR) against adriamycin-induced toxicity in rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1985 Feb;273(2):323-34.

Schrauzer GN, McGinness JE, Ishmael D, Bell LJ. Alcoholism and cancer. I. Effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on spontaneous mammary adenocarcinoma and prolactin levels in C3H/St mice. J Stud Alcohol. 1979 Mar;40(3):240-6.

Pietronigro DD, McGinness JE, Koren MJ, Crippa R, Seligman ML, Demopoulos HB. Spontaneous generation of adriamycin semiquinone radicals at physiologic pH. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(5):405-14.

McGinness JE, Crippa PR, Kirkpatrick DS, Proctor PH. Reversible and irreversible changes in hydrogen ion titration curves of melanins. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(3):217-23.

Kirkpatrick DS, McGinness JE, Moorhead WD, Corry PM, Proctor PH. High-frequency dielectric spectroscopy of concentrated membrane suspensions. Biophys J. 1978 Oct;24(1):243-5.

I vote yes, to keep the entry Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• The only feature I see here which could meet WP:PROF are the papers in Science and Nature. But a handful of papers in the top level journals does not by itself confer notability. JoshuaZ 14:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Also note that none of the papers seems to be cited more than a handful of times. Whether as Proctor claims they deserve to be cited more is not for Wikipedia to decide. They would need to be actually cited in order for that to go towards notability. JoshuaZ 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC) abstaining for now, pending more information about certain notability claims. JoshuaZ 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Now at Keep Per evidence given by Proctor on his talk page that some of these papers have been heavily cited (in the lows hundreds) and various other points. JoshuaZ 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

)

John McGinness Bio

Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.

If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.

If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.

BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete based on this diff alone [25]. Proctor, an AFD is not for you to air your grievances with the system or with particular editors. You have cluttered this page with self-serving garbage because your article about a non-notable person that appears to be written more for self-aggrandisement is up for deletion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this AFD only occurred because I offended certain people over on Raymond Damadian by defending Dr Damadian, an avowed creationist. Check it out on talk:Raymond V. Damadian.

The tremendous irony is that I am reasonably well known in human evolutionary biology. E.g., I published a paper in the journal Nature on one of few known examples of classic Darwinian natural selection in human evolution-- Nature , vol 228, 1970, p 868 "Similar Functions of Uric Acid and Ascorbate in Man". Likewise, Dr. McGinness' work pertains to the other significant example of natural-selection in humans, skin pigmentation and latitude.

One reason I supported Dr. Damadian's claims to be one of the originators of MRI was to elevate the discussion and provide NPOV by showing that we board-certified, card-carrying "Darwinists" call things as we see them, even with creationists. Next thing you know, I am accused of vandalism and promoting "creationism"--obviously, somebody had not a clue. Similarly, my posts on other pages are getting deleted under spurious "vanity" objections and this Bio gets an RFD. Pointing this out is not "clutter" and it is quite relevant to this RFD.

Back to the subject at hand. Citing WP:NOR-- You are merely expression "opinion". Not allowed here. Do you have any cite, evidence, etc., that Dr McGinness did not do exactly as the definitive documentary evidence shows. Similarly, how can you claim with a straight face that the inventor of the "Plastic Transistor" is not "notable". If you have a new color cell phone or a color display on your car radio, you are probably looking at the ultimate descendent of Dr McGinness' device. Pproctor 14:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Collector magazine

Local antiques newspaper, lacks notability Dsreyn 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NN ST47 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Unless improved, delete. If not deleted, for God's sake trim those cleanup templates. Somebody's gone a little bit nuts. -- Visviva 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Guidester

Spamvertising for nonnotable company; 201 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:SPAM; even if the company does meet WP:CORP (which is doubtful), there's no point in cleaning up this blatant PR version of the article instead of just starting over. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as per WP:NN, WP:SPAM, and probably WP:VANITY ST47 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:42, 19 August 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 keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Moreland

While the Tom Moreland Interchange is notable, I gave this a couple weeks to become not a resume, and it's pretty much stay'd the same. I support cleanup and NPOVing first, but that didn't seem to happen. I nominated for AfD as the article really doesn't provide much useful information, and hasn't been improved. i kan reed 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some honors, references and categories, so I think the article is better now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per TruthbringerToronto will381796 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep appears to be marginally notable and the article has been soucred. Eluchil404 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a notable person, though the article could do with further work.--Runcorn 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

KDCalc

This was previously deleted per WP:PROD, but was contested. it is a non-notable software product and reads like an advertisement. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as per WP:SPAM and possibly WP:VANITY ST47 16:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. Wickethewok 20:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with substantial cleanup required. Number of GHits suggests notability. The article is pretty spammy at the moment but could be salvaged. Paddles ^T_C 03:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Recently edited to remove all non-npov and add objective criticisms. Is now purely informational. KDCalc 01:05, 19 August 2006 (CST)
• Delete I can't see how it passes notability.--Runcorn 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom withdrew, confirmed on my talk page here. SynergeticMaggot 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Boston, Ontario

I believe it's a hoax. The creator is known to have created many hoaxes over wikipedia. See report for vandalism Verified. Apologies-- Szvest 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - After checking google maps, I confirmed that this locality does NOT exist. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - On top of this, after a minute of researching I found that the Boston Public School, which is mentioned in the article, is a real school[26], but it is located in the city of Waterford, Ontario. In case anyone was wondering. :) Fopkins | Talk 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- I don't have enough time to correct that. I've speedied a few articles created by this user and blocked him indefinitely. -- Szvest 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Unblocked after verification

• Delete Nuke from orbit, along with the author, who's wasted way too much time and effort by a lot of people. Fan-1967 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a hoax. Michael Greiner 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD GC1, A1, and WP:HOAX ST47 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I checked the Government of Canada's Atlas of Canada, and Boston, Ontario is not a hoax. It is listed as an unincorporated area in the Atlas of Canada http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca Mail for Boston is handled through the Waterford post office. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Check any detailed road atlas of Ontario, you'll find Boston in there. It's very small (basically one intersection), and as TruthbringerToronto mentioned, the mail is handled by Waterford. (So Boston Public School would have a Waterford address.) And for what it's worth, I've been there... CODOR 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Existance is verifiable. will381796 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NN ST47 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable settlements are inherently notable, and a quick Google search revealed a number of references to Boston, Ontario. It's big enough to have a Baptist Church, it's big enough to have a Wikipedia article. 23skidoo 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NN. For a verifiable settlement to be notable, it has to be the name actually recognized by the government. Here, from what I'm reading, they're calling it Waterford, not Boston. --M@rēino 22:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Only Canada Post considers it part of Waterford, as Boston is serviced by a rural route. The Grand Erie District School Board acknowledges it (as evidenced by the name of the public school), as well as Norfolk County as a hamlet [27]. CODOR 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. Would you object to a merge with Waterford, though? I am very, very, wary about any town article that can't give an exact population count, especially in a nation that conducts a very professional census. The size doesn't matter -- S.N.P.J., Pennsylvania is only 14 -- but it has to be exact, or else we can't tell where one town ends and the next begins.--M@rēino 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable. BoojiBoy 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, AfD was closed early by myself, but is re-opened for further discussion on request. I'll add a comment and not close -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable locale, I've driven through it a couple of times, street signage remains as "Boston", notable for several buildings, residents refer to their place of residence as "Boston", several never-incorporated places of note exist in Ontario (see Orléans, Ontario) (although Boston is much smaller in size) -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since the only notablity guideline (that I know of) for a location is the verification of it's existance. ---J.S (t|c) 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Greg Ferrara

No claim of notability Dsreyn 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Xrblsnggt 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Did he win a Daytime Emmy Award or did I misinterpret that? --Thunderhead 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The only Greg Ferrara I see listed on that page you cited is listed as a "boom operator". I doubt that this is the same person, though even if it is, I doubt that even the world's best boom operator really needs a Wikipedia entry (no offense to any boom operators who may read this). Dsreyn 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I suspect this may be a hoax. 1600Ghits for "Greg Ferrara", including principally National Grocers Association's Director of Govt Affairs, Boom ooperator who won an Emmy for "Outstanding Achievement in Live & Direct To Tape Sound Mixing For A Drama Series" - Passions (NBC), High school football coach, but none for documentarist producer director. Only entry in IMDB was Animatic Layoff in "King of the Hill" ('97 TV series) Ohconfucius 08:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Easy Electronics

I decided to skip prod, because the author appears to be acting out of bad faith(i.e. removing templates without addressing their concerns). The proposed reason for deletion is failure of WP:WEB and an article that doesn't follow NPOV guidelines. i kan reed 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR,WP:NPOV plus hints of WP:NFT Yomangani^talk 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The trifecta is now in play! Fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV....and does not follow the WP:WEB guidelines. Smells of probable WP:NFT and WP:VANITY--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:VANITY ST47 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails just about everything. NawlinWiki 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gave me a good laugh though. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Concur with Nawlin. Paddles ^T_C 03:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Pointless. &#151;Whoville 16:04, 21 August 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 AfD withdrawn by nominator.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Gene Levitt

No claim of notability - just a series of insignificant facts about this person Dsreyn 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral IMDB shows this guy to be the creator of Fantasy Island, but there is no notability in the article as it stands. Fan-1967 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per nom and as per WP:NN, but noting Fan-1967 ST47 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• AfD Withdrawn. Creating Fantasy Island seems more than enough to satisfy notability. Dsreyn 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fantasy Island was hugely popular in its day, and lasted at least 5 or 6 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per withdrawal of nomination; also extensive career as TV writer/director/producer per IMDB listing (now added to article). NawlinWiki 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eddie christian

An E-Wrestler (a person who writes roleplay pretending to be a wrestler), thus none notable. Englishrose 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Englishrose 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fantastic concept though Yomangani^talk 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 16:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS indicating any sort of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, is a fake wrestler in a sport that's fake anyway a fake²? NawlinWiki 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Carebear

This article is original research, and it doesn't have any sources. Whispering^(talk/c) 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, it's a real term, but I've never seen an actual article or column on the term for this one to cite, and it'd be pretty much a dicdef anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While wildly popular term on the World of Warcraft and Eve Online discussion forums (the two MMORPGs I used to play), Night Gyr is right: This smacks of WP:OR and WP:V. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Gray Porpoise 18:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Player versus player, I think. Powers ^T 19:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also useless to anyone who doesn't already know what it's talking about. Example: "The real start of this came when the Chesapeake group were being attacked and griefed by a PK guild, KOC..." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crufty per nom and as per WP:NOR and WP:NN ST47 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable term used only by a small group. Wikipedia is not urbandictionary -Elmer Clark 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Unbelievably, no one has voted a redirect to Care Bears, so let me be the first to. Danny Lilithborne 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef is valid (but belongs in dictionaries, not here), most of the rest is cruft.
• Comment. If this article is deleted, then add a redirect to Care Bears, since "Carebear" is probably a common misspelling of "Care Bear". —Psychonaut 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure why this has to go through AfD though. Could have been boldly merged and redirected. In any case, OR-cruft that needs to disappear. 82.231.209.148 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect and merge/transwiki - has to be my biggest vote-line yet, but it's needed. Psychonaut gives us the precident for delete and redirect, as the more notable article with this name is Care bears, clearly. This is an oft-enough used term, and major MMO websites such as Stratics should be able to provide references for the merge into PvP and related articles. Finally, the docdef part belongs in wiktionary, obviously. Whilst we could create Carebear (pvp), this would be inappropriate, as I am not aware of major discussions over the implications of this term, the social impact, etc, that we would need for a seperate article. LinaMishima 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and add redirect per Psychonaut Percy Snoodle 11:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Tag Team List

Similar content already exists as List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams; no need for a duplicate list Dsreyn 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and see my comment above for Historic Wrestling Roster Wildthing61476 18:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crufty. — Moe Epsilon 22:53 August 18 '06
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:30, 19 August 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 keep. --james^(talk) 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography of Leo Tolstoy

The list on the page is already mentioned in the main Leo Tolstoy article. Gray Porpoise 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, the list has been removed from the main article. I say, merge back in. --Gray Porpoise 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Leo Tolstoy. I see no reason for having this as a separate article. Paddles ^T_C 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All the most important works of Tolstoy are mentioned in the main article, no need to append a scary list full of arbitrary transliterations and red links. The article about the writer is over long as it is. The list of Tolstoy's works makes the article look slovenly and is actually unmaintainable: his complete works were published in hundred huge in quarto volumes, you just can't name all of them in the main article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lengthy lists are better spinned off into child articles. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Vald 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Ghirla argument. Wikiolap 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Grafic abakharev 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Man

Non-notable web cartoon. Gray Porpoise 17:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Gazpacho 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. per above. Sparsefarce 19:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In order to call it not notable, people would need to be able to find it. This isn't even on the radar. Fan-1967 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. NawlinWiki 20:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, obviously. Would have been a valid speedy. Friday (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tia Gordon

Non-notable actress/model. Doing a Google search for "Tia Gordon" + model yields 0 hits for this person. Speedy removed by author and another editor. Wildthing61476 18:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sparsefarce 19:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverfiable, vanity, possible hoax by this person, whose profile name seems to match the article author. -- Fan-1967 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment that myspace page seems no longer to exist. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a google cache. -- Fan-1967 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as NN; vanity page as it was created by username "Tiabia1220", with the last 4 digits surprisingly being the same as her birth month and year. NPOV problems. will381796 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, notability not established by verifiable sources. NawlinWiki 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds like just a vanity page and possible hoax. TJ Spyke 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Speedy should never be removed, especially in a case like this where it was fully justified. Vanity page. -Elmer Clark 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy WP:CSD#A7 only applies where there's no assertion of notability. This article claims notability; the claims just happen to be untrue, which is not a speedy category. Fan-1967 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is an unsourced biography of a 15-year-old. If we had adopted Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2, this would have been speedily deletable. ☺ But we haven't. It appears that this 15-year-old is mis-using Wikipedia as a free wiki host for xyr autobiography. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for hosting an autobiography of everyone in the world. It is an encyclopaedia. The place for this sort of thing is the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• The use of "good enough" in Seeing all the other models abusing drugs and suffering from eating disorders Gordon started to question if she was good enough for this industry. In the early 200s Tia soon developed an illness known as anorexia, is sad, but none of this is notable. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

San Puerto

Nonnotable recently declared micronation. Prod removed without reason by author Wildthing61476 18:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note "San Puerto" + micronation didn't come up with anything on Google. Is this even real? Sparsefarce 19:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non-notable or non-existant micronation. Sounds like it doesn't really even exist yet. They're going to make an artificial island and occupy it. 129.111.74.65 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, also the flag image, "Created with microsoft paint by me". NawlinWiki 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fake micronation, unverifiable, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per starblind. Most alleged micronations don't exist beyond someone with a free webpage. This one doesn't even seem to have the free webpage. Fan-1967 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - probable hoax. --Daniel Olsen 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Lol - and Delete, of course ST47 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear hoax -Elmer Clark 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Borderline speedy candidate? Paddles ^T_C 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

HMCHL

Semiprofessional street hockey league in Hamburg, NY. Nonnotable. NawlinWiki 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The content of the article seems suitable for a blog or team website but not for Wikipedia. DrunkenSmurf 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's pretty poorly written and most certainly not notable. Sparsefarce 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NN ST47 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only Google results are from blog-like websites, zero coverage, ergo non-notable. -Elmer Clark 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 03:11, 19 August 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 keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Florence Homan

Not sure of the worthyness of a page like this and infact any other oldest person in a State. Oldest in the USA or UK or Germany or any other country fair enough. Oldest in the World fine. But oldest in a area of a country no matter how large that area or country is not worthy of a article.Jimmmmmmmmm 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

  Anyone listed in the Guinness World Records is qualified to have a short article about them.

  *Weak Keep Based on the Supercentenarians category I guess there is a precendent for these articles. I just looked through a few of them and none of them seem to have done anything particularly notable other than being old. This would seem to contradict WP:BIO so I'm not sure what to do. DrunkenSmurf 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

  1. This user includes stuff that many would consider 'junk' such as some third-rate footballer league that no one outside the UK really cares about. Talk about hypocrisy. He also misspelled 'worthiness,' indicating the mindset of such a claim.

  Ok, enough of that. Florence Homan was born Nov 18 1893. Last I checked, the UK's oldest living person, Annie Knight, was born June 6 1895. In the grand scheme of things, Florence's age is more significant and thus Florence is listed in the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records (p. 67).

  Also, we see that people other than myself have created articles on 'supercentenarians' aged a mere 110 or 111 years old, such as 'Vermont's oldest person.' Thus, like the debate about whether Pluto is a planet, the bar has been set much lower than this.

  Also, User JImmmmmmmm seems to be disrespectful of the USA...we've seen 'oldest in Scotland,' is that just one country or a division? Ohio has 11 million plus persons, more than Ireland and Scotland combined. R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note let's not let this get personal. Sparsefarce 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I did say other page of this nature. Scotland is a country in it's own right so there for you could argue that is a record that is notable for mention on here. Secondly I don't have anything against Americans just over American bias on here. You comment about footballers is exactly what I feel about seeing the same page about no mark American footballers, but I never complained about them, just the inclusion of things like national American sports champion in the news section.

    Back to this page. What is here inclusion in the Guiness book of Records for? Maybe you could elaborate on the page about it. The age of here compared to the oldest person in the UK doesn't matter. The UK is a country Ohio and Vermont are states. London has 6m people would you start an article on the oldest person in London, no because it's pointless. If she isn't the oldest in America I'm not sure what her achievement is. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment The USA has 299 million people, the UK 59 million. To expect the UK to get the same amount of coverage is absurd. Instead I employ relative weight. Seen any coverage from Nauru lately?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Alright guys please keep your comments regarding other editors civil. Lets not make this an attack on other users, rather try and focus on the merits of the article itself. DrunkenSmurf 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment So the 299m people in the US are more important than the 60m in the UK. Nice. Be your reckoning if the oldest person in Ohio had been 50 that would have meant they deserved an article. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, making it to age 112 is notable in itself. NawlinWiki 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment But is the oldest person in Ohio the right way the describe her. Being 112 may be notable, but being the oldest person in a area of one country no matter how big is not. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So now we get down to the REAL issue, User Jimmmm's view of the world sees the USA as one great, giant monolith (no need to know about individual states) while 'Scotland is a country' (even though it's really a subdivision of the UK, which is a country). In fact, I employ relative weights even among the US. Ohio has 11.5 million people, and is one of the most important U.S. states (remember, Ohio decided the 2004 presidential election; no Republican has won the White House without carrying Ohio).→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DrunkenSmurf. I long for the day when we can call these "oldcruft", b/c being old really isn't notable, but so long as there's a bunch of them out there, there's no way we can justifiably single out just this one for deletion. --M@rēino 22:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So now everyone in Ohio is more important that everyone in Scotland. How many times have Ohio played at the world cup then or been represnted at the olympics? Can I have a seat on the parliment of Ohio then please, oh no it doesn't have one does it. It is just a state a part of a country no matter how big it is. There are areas of Russia larger than Ohio and how about all the Aussie states? Will they get this treatment? Of course not. Because Ohio's votes decided the Election that makes it important. Remind me next time then if Maine decides it we'll have the oldest person in Maine article. Or next time the Isle of Wight decides the UK election we'll have the same again. Madness. Ohio my have a lot of article due to it's size and population but being Ohio oldest person is still not Worldly notable achievement. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per User:Ryoung122. Extremely sexy 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per User:Bjf22898. Isn't the Internet THE place to go for all sorts of information? What is the big deal if it is a subdivision of a country or not? It might be interesting to see just who the oldest person in London is, and gee, if I knew I could find it here, it is only one more reason to come to this site and see what is interesting in the land of trivia. What one man deems "useless information" is a gem of knowledge to another. As long as it is true, I say go for it.
  • Hypothetically, what would you (or others) recommend for an article on the oldest person in Uttar Pradesh? Haryana? Nauru? Burwood? Paddles ^T_C 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oldest in a country is an objective standard. If we say that oldest person in an individual US state is a valid criteria, then we open a Pandora's box of what level of granularity is acceptable in other countries with highly subjective arguments for differing criteria. Paddles ^T_C 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• And, what is the harm in having a finer granularity of information? Bjf22898
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Sparsefarce 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You are WRONG there. This is NOT an 'indiscriminate collection' of information. It's a collection that's been organized, tested, sifted, and weeded out. You don't see us adding every 109th birthday story that comes along. http://www.crescent-news.com/index.php?tD=05192006

      I don't even add every 110th birthday story. But I think if someone is the world's 12th-oldest person, they deserve at least a paragraph or two. People in the future will ask 'whatever happened to so-and-so' when they read the 2007 Guinness Book. It's a good idea to have the answer. Plus, just maybe we can educate the public a little. If they realize that a 'few' people make it to this age, they might start to understand what the maximum human life span is (122...not 100, not 140).→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, now to argument two. Florence Homan was ranked as one of the 'top 15' oldest persons in the world, not just U.S. state. Germany, 82 million persons, has as its oldest person Irmgard von Stephani, born Sept 20 1895...almost two years younger. So, yes, age 112 years 268 days does count for something. We've seen newspaper articles on Meta Buehrer, Toledo's oldest person (died at 109) and Herman Phillips, oldest in Canton, Ohio (died at 109, May 2006). No one ran out to do a 'county-level' article. And the truth is, we can't do Uttar Pradesh because India doesn't have the records for it. In effect, complete records exist for some nations (Japan 100%), partial and incomplete for others (USA) and some nations, no records. Thus, there isn't a whole lot to worry about 'Uttar Pradesh's oldest person.' But in theory, if you have the records, you can apply (even from South America). So that's why we have Maria Capovilla, 116, world's oldest person.

  The current number of supercentenarian articles on Wikipedia is 118, far less than the number of football or baseball players. If we're going to have Wikipedia information on every city and town in America, surely we could do the 'oldest out of 11.5 million people.' Sheesh. This lady was an adult when the Titanic sank. She was older than London's Tower Bridge. Not a single person left in the UK is 112.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment C'mon. Stay cool, as per WP:COOL. If you haven't noticed, I haven't even voted on this. I'm just trying to clarify where I see necessary. Sparsefarce 05:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever you're going to categorize her for, categorize everyone in the category. If you classfied her as a 112 year-old, include all 112-year olds. I'm guessing she is a single-subject of her cateogory, and, that makes it easy to remove her...or include everyone else. User:NealIRC

Comment (Consider this not just about Florence Homan but about articles on persons famous for age).

I categorized Florence Homan as a 'supercentenarian' (persons aged 110+). My general policy is to give every verified person an article who reaches 112.5 (halfway between 112 and 115). Why? Consider the current 'top 10' oldest people, the 9th and 10th-oldest are 112 (but closer to 113). To be more specific, Florence Homan was 112.73 years old.

News-worthiness is also decided by a number of other non-numerical factors, including a person's history, family, and personality. Clearly, this woman had no remaining family and so got only weak media coverage, while someone like Virginia Muise (aged 111), more than a year younger as 'New Hampshire's oldest person,' got multi-state news coverage. In fairness, Florence deserved more. In another state, it was claimed that Olive Dubay, 110, was Michigan's oldest person:

http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2006/08/11/news/local_regional/n ews01.txt

But I didn't do an article on her. At the time, she ranked 58th-oldest in the world. So, while I think this article clearly should stay (and the 'keep' is winning), a real question should not be whether to keep this but what standards should be employed.

I totally disagree with User Jimmm's comments. I wasn't saying that Ohioans were more important than Scots because they were superior or better. I was saying that, given the population of Ohio is over twice that of Scotland, and given Ohio's economic and political strength, it is unwise to simply dismiss a US state. The US is a Federal, not unitary, system. In Russia, governors are often selected by Vladimir Putin. Subdivisions are often just a matter of geographic convenience. Most recognize that, traditionally, national subdivisions of the USA, Canada, and Australia are shown on the map. Anglo-centric? Perhaps. But that's what map-makers do.

As for Florence and Australia, she was in fact older than anyone in Australia at the time (by more than a year). Jimm's comments are like saying the USA can't have the bronze medal because they have the silver. Look at the U.S. Congress. The big state/small state compromise let equal represenation in the Senate, proportional representation in the House. Clearly, it's a split-the difference solution, but each side gave some ground. The bottom line: there is something to be said that '5th-oldest of country X' may not sound like a lot, but look at the other side. The USA is #1 in the world in the 110+ population. Giving the USA more articles thus serves as somewhat proportional representation to reflect this reality. At the same time, no one did an article on Olive Dubay, even though she was older than Switzerland's oldest person (someone did an article on that one). So, like the big state/small state compromise, I believe there is a sensible line here. We are giving the USA a few more articles than 'one country, one article' but in reality, the USA is not getting its due. If anything, the INORDINATE number of British/UK centenarian and supercentenarian articles betray a UK bias. We see among 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' that far more UK soldiers have an article, even if their age were younger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Cummins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Newcombe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roberts_%28veteran%29

Meanwhile, check out Americans, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc without articles.

Living in the USA - 18 veterans Name DOB Nationality Force Served Notes Anderson, Homer 1897 24 December American USA-Balloon Corps Resides in Florida Babcock, John F. 1900 23 July Canadian Canadian Resides in Spokane, Washington Brown, Lloyd 1901 7 October American USA-Navy Resides in Maryland Buchanan, Russell 1900 24 January American USA-Navy Resides in Watertown, Massachusetts, and is also a WWII veteran Buckles, Frank Woodroff 1901 February 1 American USA-Army Resides in West Virginia Coffey, J. Russell 1898 1 September American USA-Army Resides in Ohio

So, 'oldcruft' is OK for the UK, even when not the oldest living veteran, while non-UK veterans get ignored, even if they are older?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_veterans_of_the_First_World_War

Look at the other lists. Italy NO articles, France 13%, Germany 11%, USA 39% coverage, UK 71% (5 of 7) coverage. Clearly, the UK is getting more than its fair share.

But, you might say, that's because the UK Wikipedians have taken the initiative to do more articles. The same might be said for the USA. If you want to start deleting articles, do we really need to know who is a 105-year-old non-combat WWI veteran? And if yes, why not for all the nations, not just one? 68.219.137.224 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One comment from Jimmm...about Ohio not having a 'parliament'...is totally ridiculous. The USA has a Congress, and Ohio DOES have a legislature. Wow. It's amazing how little people really know about places outside their area.

• Delete. If she were the oldest person, living or dead, in Ohio, ever, I could see it. But she was oldest living person in Ohio only for 2.5 months earlier this year. There's always an "oldest living person" in Ohio, and will be for the foreseeable future. VivianDarkbloom 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep—Not only is the information verifiable, but there is no compelling reason to delete this, which is what the burden of proof should be. Ardric47 06:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As there is no encyclopedic reason to keep information on her. Oldest is really not significant. GRBerry 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If she had lived to be the oldest person in the USA (not only in Ohio) and/or to be among the top ten then the article would be of interest but so it is not.

• Keep. Listed in Guinness, therefore notable. WP:NOT paper. --Myles Long 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a drastically small subset of people qualify as supercentenarians, all members of this subset due to its minute size in contrast to the 5 billion people on earth should qualify... There are more pokemon cards than there are supercentenarians in the world, if each of them is acceptable...  ALKIVAR™ 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Possibly all supercentenarians are notable, and certainly those in Guinness are.--Runcorn 20:06, 24 August 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 keep. - Bobet 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Shelby Bryan

The subject matter is someone who is quite obscure. Though I understand certain colleges may like to showcase their alumni in order to enhance institutional prestige, some of these entries resemble press releases. Gold Gloves? Cad to a fashion magazine editor? Worked for Ralph Nader? Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardG (talk • contribs)

• Keep. The business biography part of the article interests me. Senior telecom company executives are usually notable. The rest of the article doesn't really interest me. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringer; seems like a significant early player in the telecom business. Feel free to edit out some of the minor details (though the affair with Wintour should stay in). NawlinWiki 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup required per Truthbringer and Nawlin. Some of the details (e.g. what his kids are doing) are superfluous. Paddles ^T_C 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the collapse of ICG cost stakeholders 100s of millions if not billions. This was a key bankruptcy of the internet era and there was some issue over investors reaction to it (no citation comes to mind). I remember meeting him surrounded by young acolytes who couldn't get enough of his vision.
• Delete On further research, I question whether this article was written by a blood relative (ackabryan), which may explain the public relations tone. I agree that the ICG collapse was notable, though for sake of precedence, have other failed telecom CEOs (other than Ebbers) been given a Wiki entry? Last, though Millicom did provide cellular service to developing countries, they were in fact a pager network provider. The Bells and overseas PTTs were the cellular service pioneers, for better or worse.
• Reply If its the same Millicom I'm thinking of, its still extant; it is indeed one of the largest international wireless operators. Just because the article is banal does not mean there should not be an article on this man. I was there. The billions lost - peoples' entire nest eggs wiped out. This wasn't just a small start-up. It was one of the big ones. And it should be remembered lest we forget our folly at the time. Just because some others have not had a write up doesn't make it less relevant that his biography should stand. There are plenty of wikipedia articles yet to be written...
• Reply I am sorry that you were at a company managed by Shelby Bryan. I never implied that Millicom or ICG were minor failures, rather I mentioned that I wasn't aware of other less-than-notorious telecom CEOs making it to Wikipedia. Millicom was already a wireless player, having made their first cellular license applications a good 2 to 3 years prior to Shelby's arrival. During his tenure, most of their revenue was derived from being a pager network provider. He left Millicom in rather shaky financial condition, though they have since survived after a restructuring under new management. Thus the failure of ICG was presaged by a smaller scale disaster at Millicom. If you advocate having this article survive deletion, then you are implicitly stating that it should serve as a dispassionate cautionary tale. This entails a major rewrite, as the current article falls short of that goal.
• keep. Seems to be notable enough. If the ICG collapse was elaborated, it would be more interesting and unbiased. Downplaying the collapse as "in part to be the result of Bryan's overspending" is clearly NPOV by omission. Who cares if his two sons are still in college, and who cares where his daughter works??? Ohconfucius 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's enough there to demonstrate notability.--Runcorn 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom El Fuego

Non-notable show. Google search turns up no results for this show or TCUDG. Prod removed without reason by author Wildthing61476 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to the nomination for deletion, the Tom El Fuego article has been cleaned up. There is no longer any mention of "TCUDG" in the article. All facts are correct.Tomelfuego 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - even if the "facts are correct", this homemade show is nonnotable. Selling 1000 DVDs doesn't make it notable. NawlinWiki 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I live in Pensylvannia and have seen Tom El Fuego, and have absolutely NO relationship with "Tom Van Cleef" or anyone involved with the show. As the article states, it has a strong cult following. Thediesel 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: First and only edit from new editor.

• Delete Absolute, 100% failure to Verify from Reliable Sources. Fan-1967 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it's an independent show doesn't mean it's not credible. There are lots of articles on wikipedia for independent bands and record labels, are you saying we should delete them too? Also, since the show is independent, it is possible it doesn't have a website to "varify sources," meaning that this wikipedia article might very well be the only easy to find information about Tom El Fuego, giving more reason to keep the article.Jumpinjerseyjim 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: First and only edit from new editor.
  • No. In fact entirely the converse is true. If this article is the only way to find out information about the subject, then it contravenes our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Your argument is in fact a very strong argument for the deletion of this article, irrespective that you happen to have prefixed it with the word "keep". Uncle G 09:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No Google results, not listed on IMDB or TV.com...I can't even find evidence that this show exists, much less meets any sort of notability criteria. -Elmer Clark 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, no indication of notability. -- Infrogmation 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely no grounds for listing.--Runcorn 19:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - on notability, verifiability and vanity grounds. - David Oberst 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorealism

Yet another "new philosophy"; original research and unverifiable, if not hoax. NawlinWiki 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think, therefore I Delete Wildthing61476 21:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom and Wildthing. ~ c. tales ^*talk* 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifable, lacks reliable sources. It gets 18 unique Google hits, but all of those seem unrelated to what the article is describing (most are misspellings of surrealism). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was about to speedy this, but, alas. Delete slowly and thoroughly, per above. Friday (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total Bollocks - Richfife 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gives no indication of notability -Elmer Clark 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Wrestling Roster

As with Historic Wrestling Roster and Historical Tag Team List, unneccessary listcruft. Recommend deletion and possible severe warning of author to stop creating these lists Wildthing61476 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unnessesary ST47 21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as redundant. TJ Spyke 22:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, list is not even complete. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it all and/or Redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment roster and this is a WWE roster. — Moe Epsilon 15:19 August 19 '06

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Into the Black

Internet television show with 1 episode in production, others in pre-production. It hasn't generated any independent coverage, so it fails under WP:V and WP:RS. There's a bit of crystal balling going on too. This Google search and this Yahoo! search bring up no independent sources. I'd also like to point out the AfD for Into The Black, which was deleted on the same grounds. The content is almost identical in both articles. However, please note that this is not a recreation- I just forgot to look up "Into the Black" in addition to "Into The Black". --Wafulz 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ST47 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The Wired news story constitutes independent coverage in my book. Note that that source was not yet present during the previous vote. It seems to be generating some buzz, at least. -Elmer Clark 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually this article was present in the last AfD. It was the first source mentioned. --Wafulz 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the article: "...the series is set to premiere in late 2006 or early 2007...". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous AFD. --kingboyk 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Elmer Clark. The Wookieepedian 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Wired news article also briefly dedicates one paragraph on the second page, which I don't believe meets "non-trivial third party coverage." --Wafulz 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at present. Restore if it becomes notable.--Runcorn 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears notable for having the (unofficial) support of Joss Whedon and the support (including financial) of Nathan Fillion. Xmoogle 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the Wired article is about Whedon fan films in general, and this film gets one paragraph in a 2 page article. If that really is the best independent source (I couldn't find anything better), there's no real claim of notability. If it's actually finished and becomes popular, someone can create a new article. - Bobet 13:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

East Coast Bob

Character/gag from a radio show. Must be kept in parent page. Medico80 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ECB precipitated the remarks by Michael Savage on the "Savage Nation" which led to his removal from MSNBC. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1510241 this clearly makes him more significant than just KiddChris's flunky.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_%28commentator%29#MSNBC The Bob being referred to is ECB. Vargob 03:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. TJ Spyke 22:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:04, 19 August 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.

This page has been blanked. Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was 'Speedy delete' per A7; encyclopedic notability not shown in article.. Shell ^babelfish 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bradley Hathaway

Unsourced, unverifiable, may be hoax. Prodded, prod removed (and article changed into yet another kind of nonsense) by anon. May even be G1 speedy candidate, but the previous version looked more coherent. Delete --Huon 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete bio.SweetNeo85 22:05, 18 August 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 Keep - nomination withdrawn, consensus is keep Martinp23 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

KO·MO·RE·BI

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article is welcome when the album exists, or when it has some more concrete release information.(IMHO) SweetNeo85 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep upcoming release by notable artist. Compare to Chinese Democracy (or Duke Nukem Forever). Noteworthy information about it appears to already be known, such as "the single will be used as the theme song for the movie "Tegami." -Elmer Clark 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete since the majority of the article is speculation. The analogy with "Chinese Democracy" might hold, but that's become much more of a touchstone than this is at the moment (as well as being an album). BigHaz 23:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the majority of the article is in fact not speculation. The only part that happens to be speculation is the release date, while all other information has been confirmed by official sources, one of those official sources being her official website. - ShinigamiNiko 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Elmer Clark and ShinigamiNiko. --Daniel Olsen 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep We even have a template for upcoming singles.. If we have that then why can't we have upcoming singles? Either keep this or delete that template. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to user space. When an official announcement is made (presuming one is), it can be moved back to article space. Fg2 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as it has been announced (on August 18) on her official website. Because it uses Flash, I can't give a direct URL, but if you go here and click on the "information" link at the bottom, it's the first item in the list. It's also listed on her Sony Music page under the information tab. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Here is a direct link to the announcement on her official website that Nihonjoe mentions above; here is a new post on her official blog which provides further confirmation of TAKUYA's involvement (for those that can stomach her gushing Japanese long enough to read that far). I think the only real speculation remaining in the article is the expected single release date and the track list; those should (perhaps) be removed until confirmed, but there's no reason to delete the article at this stage. — Haeleth Talk 11:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean-up Release info exists on site; artist is notable per WP:BAND But, let's get rid of the ALL CAPS NAMES. --Kunzite 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination WithdrawnSweetNeo85 00:49, 23 August 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Varol Akman

Blatant vanity article of non-notable academic. Created by User:Akman and is almost identical to his user page, and identical to since-reverted changes he made to Template:Philosopher-stub. Prod was attempted, but removed by anonymous editor along with autobiography and potential-vanity templates so beginning AfD Wingsandsword 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--SweetNeo85 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The publications mentioned in his list, as well as those displayed by doing a search at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Varol+Akman , together with the accomplishments listed in the article, probably add up to notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note however, that the main source for the accomplishments listed in the article are the subject's own contributions to Wikipedia (his edit to Template:Philosopher-stub at [28]) and his own curriculum vitae and web page, makes it a textbook WP:AUTO case. While he does list his accomplishments, they do seem like those of a typical active professor, who would publish papers and perform work throughout their career, and is relatively non-notable compared to other professors in his field (you could write a similar biography of pretty much any career professor listing published papers, fields of interest, and minor awards won). Listing major accomplishments, major awards won, widely cited papers, or other highly notable accomplishments from outside sources might make this notable, but if the subject himself couldn't bring himself to list things like that (since autobiographies do have the strong tendancy to be self-aggrandizing), it doesn't seem likely that they would exist. --Wingsandsword 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alvin6226 ^talk 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• No opinion. I would say that the statements regarding his role inn setting up a new program and promoting analytic philosophy in Turkish academia add up to a credible claim of notability. But absent third-party sources it does not seem clear that he meets Wikipedia:Academics. -- Visviva 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per TruthbringerToronto. He's got 20,000+ Google hits (more than 22,000 for the name, but some a few are for other guys. That's a whomping good number for a Turkish academic. And Notre Dame thinks he's good enough to publish his writing [29], and it looks like lots of other academic journals do too. VivianDarkbloom 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep About 60 pubs and sam no conference procs plus other stuff. And if the philosophy in Turkey claims are verifiable that would seem to confirm notability. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — per TruthbringerToronto. Dionyseus 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough verified info to prove notability.--Runcorn 19:53, 24 August 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Missouri bellwether

I think we have WP:OR issues here, as well as this being questionably encyclopedic and probably at best deserves one line in the Missouri article. (The page seems to have been created in response to similar information being excluded by other editors at the Missouri article). Peyna 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Seems reasonably well-sourced. Needs a little style help, and perhaps a new title, but Google results are very strong (greater than 100,000 hits). Given that Peyna is the editor trying to keep this off the Missouri article, I think this may be a bad-faith nom. Irongargoyle 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon? I just don't think it merits an article, and gave some reasons why. The first link on the list you provide pretty much shoots down the entire article as it currently stands. A good number of the rest of the g-hits are by, not surprisingly, people from Missouri. Peyna 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would add that even reading more than I should have on the subject, Missouri does not come off as a "bellwether." It is not a trend-setter, it is at best a trend-follower, and not a very good one lately. Peyna 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:OR depends on whether it is all the work of the author in question, not whether or not the works cited are from Missouri. I can see the argument for POV being made here, but the USA Today link does something to to counter these arguments. This article merely cites a well known (and frequently cited) phenomenon, who said it and why. It doesn't then draw the POV conclusion that this should then hold in the future. I'm not saying Missouri is a bellwether or not, I honestly don't care, but there are a lot of people out there who are saying that it is. Irongargoyle 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - 100,000 google references and easily found third party references should be enough. If picking 24 out of 25 Presidential elections over 100 years is not noteworthy I don't know what is. Americasroof 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would call that coincidence. I have yet to see anything suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship. Peyna 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Something doesn't have to be a cause-effect relationship to be noteworthy. Nor do I think the article (or Americasroof's comment) makes any claims to a cause-effect relationship. Irongargoyle 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that if you have enough variables, you'll end up with a few "interesting" looking sequences like this, but you can't draw any logical conclusions from them. Peyna 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I agree completely, but the notability (in this case) does not result from its scientific rigor (however much we might like it to). It results from the number of people who have cited the pattern. Astrology is an extreme example of this. Things like the List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy thrive on the law of large numbers. Missouri bellwether may be legit, or it could be completely spurrious instance of the LLN, but for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really matter. Irongargoyle 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Numerous third party references. Whether or not the concept is factual doesn't make it's obviously very prevelant use any less notable. I can see style and POV issue in the article but AfD is not the proper course to correct those matters. Agne 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have rewritten the article to answer some of the nominator's concerns. I believe upon review you will find the article well sourced (to alleviate any OR concerns) with several national news outlets highlighting the notability of the term. I also included references to those, like the nom, who disagree with Missouri's bellwether status for the benefit of NPOV. I hope the nom will review the article and consider withdrawing the AfD. Agne 10:01, 20 August 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer is not a notable person. Morton devonshire 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At the request of my Wiki-friend SkeenaR, and in deference to Professor Fetzer, I withdraw the nomination. I bid you peace. Morton devonshire 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Just adding a note that the AfD on this was begun at 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) for closing admin (I don't think you can technically withdraw once initiated, Morton, but I'm not 100% sure). rootology (T) 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable professor, and 9/11 researcher. He's appeared on Fox News for interviews, and has been featured in major newspapers. Fetzer has also authored numerous books, and scientific articles. Please review Google results for this person and a Google News search for this person. If anyone has news archive access, you'll find MANY more (Lexis Nexus, etc.). POV nomination. (review user's contribs). rootology (T) 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) rootology (T) 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Edit-conflict keep. Mr. Fetzer is the author of over a dozen books (according to the article and its sources), multiple articles, and is the founder of a notable organization (Scholars for 9/11 Truth). If he was just a college professor, he would not be notable, but he is, as I stated, also a published author and the founder of a notable and controversial organization. Srose (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable per above comments plus 34,000 Google hits. - N1h1l 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable per arguments already given -Elmer Clark 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Whatever you think of the 9/11 truth group (and I don't think much of them myself) they have garnered significant media coverage. The bar for inclusion on WP is so low that he could probably get in on being a professor alone, but he's gotten enough media coverage to make this an obvious call. Gamaliel 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment but hey, why should that stop a nomination, he is a in the 9/11 Truth Movement after all... --Striver 01:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral I not sure on how to 'vote' on this one. He doesn't seem to be that important but on the other hand has had media coverage on a few networks. So I will be neutral and follow this one for a while. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think Gamaliel pretty much covered it. I mean, even one thinks Fetzer is completely out to lunch, he is clearly notable. Being the the big bug on WP this and WP that, and clearly not stupid, I have a hard time believing Morton doesn't realize this. A misbehaven nomination. SkeenaR 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete [attack removed] isn't a notability criteria. [attack removed] are trying to become famous and wikipeida shouldn't help them. NN and not encyclopedic.--Tbeatty 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - [quoted attack removed], as you put it, has nothing to do with it. This man has authored over a dozen books. No matter what his viewpoint, he has proven his notability. Maybe his group is trying to get press coverage, but the point is, they're receiving it. Many of Fetzer's accomplishments are also unrelated to the 9/11 Truth Movement. Srose (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I never said [reference to attack removed] was a criteria. Maybe read the comments. Wikipedia's mission is to document, not influence. Nothing unencyclopedic here. SkeenaR 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Doesn't WP:BLP apply here too? Shouldn't that comment about [reference to attack removed] be removed as an attack? rootology (T) 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, it should. SkeenaR 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment [reference to attack removed] but he does believe that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon: Draw your own conclusion (of course that's not reason to delete the article, but notability is). Morton devonshire 19:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just because you accept as gospel truth everything that mainstream media and the official reports said about 9/11 doesn't mean that other people can't become notable because they beg to differ. PizzaMargherita 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This page is not a biography. How you apply Biography rules to a discussion page is beyond my ability to comprehend. If that were the case, there would be no histories of articles or talk pages where negative material is discussed. WP:BLP applies to the current revision of articles, not discussions, talk pages or previous versions of pages. [attack removed] and that's my opinion and we are allowed to give our opinions in discussions. --Tbeatty 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment try actualy reading WP:BLP. --Striver 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. How shamelessly POV to propose its deletion. PizzaMargherita 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per PizzaMargherita. Amen. Travb (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone familiar with my work would know that I do not believe that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon! No Boeing 757 hit the building, but a smaller plane--possibly an A-3 Sky Warrior--may have fired a missile just before it impacted. I find it just a bit much that false reasons, which are easily refuted, are being offered to keep me out of this publication. Something is not right. PLUS I am not a "college professor". I am Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus, which I earned. This is a considerable distinction that someone has repeatedly edited off the page. You can check it at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/. Someone edited out my corrections to the Scholars' entry in the past and now they are editing out my corrections to my own entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.0.27 (talk • contribs)
• Comment. Since Professor Fetzer is now editing Wikipedia, the rules of WP:NPA apply and I have removed remarks which could be construed as personal attacks. Even if this is not Prof. Fetzer, there is no reason we can't discuss this issue without making attacks. Gamaliel 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• I can asssure you that this is James H. Fetzer. I have taken Wikipedia at its word as having a commitment to accuracy. In the past I tried to correct and improve the entry on Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only to have my edits repeatedly rebuffed. Yet who in the world should be better positioned to insure the accuracy of that entry than its founder? Now I discover that someone is offering distorted representations about who I am in order to sabotage my own entry by trivializing my rank as though I were just another "college professor" and by attributing positions to me that I do not hold! I have published 27 books! Anyone who wants to know what I think about the Pentagon can go to st911.org and read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"! I have also added several references. Someone may be abusing his position, but I appreciate that most of you are giving me a fair shake. user:jfetzer@d.umn.edu
• Speedy Keep As with the recent AFD on Scholars for 9/11 truth, Fetzer is indeed a notable person. This is ridiculous. EyesAllMine 16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not only is this ridiculous but someone, whom I suspect is Morton Devonshire, keeps changing my permanent rank as Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus to something else. I am no longer Distinguished McKnight University Professor, but I am Distinguished McKnight Univerisity Professor Emeritus, as my official UMD academic web site states. So why is this person, who is Morton, if I am right, trying repeatedly to trivialize my status? And why did he create this bogus issue in the first place? It is apparent to me that there is a corrosive force at work here that is not interested in truth or accuracy but rather in minimizing the influence of those of us who are bringing the truth about 9/11 to the American people. Something is very wrong at Wikipedia! user:jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Amen to that... --Striver 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I nominated the article for Afd. No, I have not been changing your titles. Yes, there is a corrosive force at work on Wikipedia, and that's people trying to use it to soapbox their views -- Wikipedia is not a place of first publication, its role is to gather other information from reliable sources (and that doesn't include blogs and other self-published sources), and deliver it in a neutral manner. That means no advocacy of theories or ideas, just straight reporting of facts. Many of your supporters come here to advocate, and that's just not allowed on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you've been brought into this mess. I wish you the best. Morton devonshire 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Someone who thinks a missile hit the Pentagon (in a country where a president can't even keep secret where he puts his cigars but this is kept from public knowledge no less!) needs an article if only to have more people know what he is really about.--Kalsermar 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• For some reason, someone is putting a "reference (2)" to "Professors of Paranoia" after the list of institutions at which I have taught as opposed to later in the article when there is mention of my (allegedly) having called for a military coup. At this point in time, I have corrected it repeatedly, only to find it restored again and again. IT HAS NO APPROPRIATE FUNCTION AS A REFERENCE WHERE IT IS BEING IMPOSED. I cannot believe that Wikipedia personnel are this incompetent (since it does not belong where it has been repeatedly restored). I therefore infer that it is a deliberate attempt to perform a subtle smear. Check it out for yourself, but my confidence in the integrity of Wikipedia is being shaken for the third or fourth time based upon my own personal experience. Whoever is responsible for this corrupt act ought to be censured or replaced. It is entirely uncalled for. user:jfetzer@d.umn.edu

While I appreciate you contributing you call into question the contents of the article now as you are editing it yourself. Further you should read up on policy such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We take things items very seriously and appreciate if you browse them before proceeding in commenting here. You have called you fellow editors "incompetent" and assumed bad faith by stating you "infer that it is a deliberate attempt to perform a subtle smear". So feel free to contribute but please do not assume people are attempting to portray you negatively or sabotage anything and please refrain from insulting your fellow editors. Thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm gonna vote delete, since mr Fetzer apparantly doesn't want his article to have references. And verifiability is kind of sort of a policy here.--Peephole 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You do know this is not a good reason to delete an article, right? Editors, especially if they are new to WP, are bound to make mistakes. It happens all the time and that does not necessarily end up in the article being deleted. PizzaMargherita 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Professor Feltzer, if you're reading this, please go to mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l. Articles of a biographical nature are held to a special standard. If you feel that any bias exists, place a posting to this mail list--it is read by the literal "management" of Wikipedia, including it's founder, and will draw significant attention to any situation of bias or impropriety. Beyond that, the major rule is that articles have to NPOV, or non point of view--neutral. That is, "positive" and "negative" info can be included, so long as it is factual, accurate, and meets a long list of special inclusion criteria. ANYTHING of a negative nature, including ANY criticism, must be sourced and factually cited by a very vigorous standard, or else it WILL be removed per policy. If you have any additional concerns the Wikimedia Foundation, who runs the show, can be contacted if you need to at wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us. I'll be courteous and email you this info as well, just in case you don't see this page again. Have a nice day. rootology (T) 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for helping me out. Contrary to the insinuation that I do not want references, I have added several to this entry; but I find the one to which I take exception is out of place. (It already appears as the citation for the final sentence.) Those of us who become deeply involved in these matters sometimes become overly sensitive about these things, because we are subject to so many unjustifiable attacks from politically motivated sources. I did not originate this entry but, once I discovered it, I have made an effort to improve its accuracy. I have made no effort to change any criticisms of me that were originally there, by the way, which tracing the history of this entry would confirm. The reasons for proposing its deletion--"not notable", "believes that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon", "doesn't want references"--are easily proven false. My apologies if I have offended anyone. If you are serious, then these objections should not be taken seriously. I just have higher expectations of Wikipedia. Jim Fetzer P.S. I believe that my concerns are consistent with the "Five Pillars", though not the way I have expressed them.

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Na'ama Yehuda

Non-notable alternative medicine practitioner. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Possible advert. -AED 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable - WP:BIO. Nephron  T|C 10:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can we add practicing therapeutic touch as an additional criterion meriting deletion? Please. alteripse 04:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability/notoriety not established. JFW | T@lk 12:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Factor Zero

"The book has yet to be picked up through traditional publishing but wil be released soon on a self-publishing basis by the author himself." see WP:Not a crystal ball, WP:Notability Camillus (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Almost certainly a vanity-type entry as well. BigHaz 23:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rklawton 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Radiative Primarism

Possible vanity. Created by User:Esteban, who also created the Stephen Goodfellow article, which has twice been deleted as vanity. "Radiative Primarism" is credited as being "conceived of by artist Stephen Goodfellow". Majority of google hits are Wikipedia mirrors and artists own website. Infrogmation 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rklawton 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of notability or use by anyone other than author -Elmer Clark 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. You might also want to consider nominating Macropointillism and Micropointillism. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Retain - Radiative Primarism is published and utilized by many artists, chiefly graduating from College for Creative Studies. Radiative Primarism has its roots in Micropointillism. Micropointillism was invented in 1977 by Stephen Goodfellow and improved upon by Lowell Boileau. Furthermore, both medias have been publicly exhibited hundreds of times and the Detroit Institute of Arts holds them in their collection. A search of the web will verify.
  

If this does not satisfy, I can scan a plethora of reviews on the subject from a wide verity of publications.
Esteban 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Abe&Kroenen

Non-notable Livejournal webcomic, fails WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. Peripitus (Talk) 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also there isn't even a website link... Alvin6226 ^talk 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rklawton 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, It has 425 Livejournal people watching it at livejournal, maybe it's better known on livejournal?--Kisai 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Merovingian - Talk 12:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Article is being amended. As noted above, the comic does nave a reasonable following of subscribers on Livejournal as well as uncounted visitors from the web. Additionally, the comic is more notable due to its commendation by the film's director some weeks ago. If lack of content is a problem, it will be addressed in the coming days. --Dorianshayle 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you can find a source to verify the director's commendation, then the comic would be worth keeping. A parody lauded by a creator of what it's poking fun at is a notable thing. Xuanwu 09:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SmartWare

fails WP:CORP; non-notable software; the name "SmartWare" applies to a lot of companies and products including cookware, so Google counts are misleading; Alexa has no rating for the corporate website and counts only 16 other sites that link to it. If one removes the article's cruft, there's nothing in it to indicate notability - not that any of it is sourced... Rklawton 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom, a lot of companies using this name. This company seems miniscule, with very little info available. Not much even to their website. Fan-1967 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ImproveMaybe I misunderstood, but Wikipedia is, among others, an on-line encyclopedia? Does the size of a company matter for deciding if a fact is mentioned in an encyclopedia? Under Informix mention is made of SmartWare, which has been a product of theirs, but no explanation has been provided as to what it is. So I thought lets provide one so people can learn about that fact. I can't help others mis-use the name. Han van Heerde 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What matters are WP:CORP and WP:SOFTWARE, which both embody the same primary notability criterion, and our Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. You've been asked, in the article, to cite sources. So please do so. Please cite multiple, non-trivial, published works, from sources independent of the creators/authors of the software, that are about the software, to demonstrate both that the PNC is satisfied and that this article is verifiable and not original research. Uncle G 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Almost the complete text is taken from a few articles as published in an electronic magazine (e-zine) called Echo On. I have permission to use it for publication on Wikipedia in order to explain what SmartWare is. What do I need to do in order to satisfy the needs in order to prevent deletion? Han van Heerde 13:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The text as displayed now also mentions a book called Tips, tricks and traps. It is a whole book covering SmartWare. Does that satisfy the "Software is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews."? Han van Heerde 13:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Fan-1967. Paddles ^T_C 02:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because this is a spamvertisement. --Karnesky 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ImproveI presume spamvertisement is something like combining spam and an advertisement. Please let me know what text gives this impression, so I can adapt it (I'm Dutch and completely new to Wikipedia). Thanks in advance. Han van Heerde 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Casper2k3 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. I would take issue with this decision establishing a consensus as to whether to keep or delete individual song articles by this or other artists. My personal opinion is that they should be decided on a case-by-case basis.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Little Lover

We've got LOADS of articles on individual AC/DC album tracks that have no other claim for notability. I'm listing this one to establish some kind of community consensus as to whether individual album tracks deserve individual articles. The articles generally repeat info from the album page and not much else besides. DELETE exolon 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom for the reasons cited. I prefer album articles for albums with awards and track articles for tracks with awards. Rklawton 00:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merging any verifiable information to the strangely-titled High Voltage (Australian album). Jkelly 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have no issue with individual tracks having their own article. Just H 14:03, 21 August 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 keep, but remove any and all unsourced or poorly sourced entries as per WP:LIVING (if such is the case), and don't put them back until you find adequate references. The arguments presented for deleting this list are accompanied by the suggestion of dumping everything into a category, which would darken the situation from imperfect to incurable. Remember that it is not possible to add footnotes to an automatically generated category page, which, in isolation and at face value, may be interpreted as libelous. Controversial classifications, especially of people, should be handled by properly cited lists, rather than by categories. --CharlotteWebb 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of gay porn stars

I am nominating this article for deletion. Most of listed names are not sourced and listing them does not meet WP:V. Jimbo has said that calling someone a "porn star" without providing a source is something that should be removed from Wikipedia articles. Everyone who should be on a list like this and meets the sourcing rules for WP:BIO for living persons should be listed in the gay porn stars category which already has many more verified names than this list. WP doesn't need two different lists on the same subject (even if one is called a category). The category is better. So it is the one that should be kept. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pointless, the list adds nothing that wouldn't be done better by a category. Paddles ^T_C 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The List of gay porn stars article is separate and distinct from the Gay porn stars category; the category does not duplicate the information in the article. The article is a list of names; the category is a list of articles. Articles haven't been written about each performer on the list; one of the uses of the list is to identify articles which need to be written.

The veracity of the names on the list can be checked against the reference sources listed on the Talk:List of gay porn stars page. That list of sources can be moved to an "External links" or "References" section at the bottom of the main article if need be.

Most of the names on the list are familiar to those who are interested in gay pornography. While organizing and reformatting the list recently, I searched on several names that I didn't recognize and deleted them from the list if I couldn't find videographies or reliable information for them. This is ongoing work; the article is closely monitored by several different editors and attempts at vandalism are reverted.

This nomination may establish an unwanted precedent. If this succeeds, other articles in the same vein will need to be deleted as well, among the likely candidates are:

List of bisexual porn stars

List of female porn stars

List of female porn stars by decade

List of hispanic porn stars

List of Jewish pornographic actors

List of porn stars who are lesbians

List of porn stars who appeared in mainstream films

List of transsexual porn stars

—Chidom ^talk  04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [ Updated recommendation to clarify difference between lists of names (articles) and lists of articles (categories) 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ]

• Strong Keep, but list only those names with their own entries on Wikipedia. HalJor 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - perhaps remove those without Wikipedia entries (as per HalJor. Rhyddfrydol 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - one of the reasons for having the list is to show articles that need to be written; removing the names that don't have already have entries defeats the purpose of the list. Check out Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Advantages of lists:

"3.  Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created."

If you check the Talk:List of gay porn stars page, you'll see that the consensus was to de-wikilink names for which articles didn't exist to remove all the red links, but leave the names to show which articles were still needed.

Creating stubs isn't the solution, either; they get deleted before they have a chance to be developed. In the case of Manuel Torres (porn star), the page was tagged with an AfD (never mind a ProD) 1 hour and 12 minutes after it was started (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Torres (porn star)).

Bottom line. It's either "Keep" or "Delete"; removing the names from the list that don't already have articles duplicates the category and renders the list useless.—Chidom ^talk  03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

- Point taken. For the record I am not against names appearing in the list without Wikipedia links, and I totally understand that the purpose of the list is to give a pointer to articles which need creating. I now vote keep. Rhyddfrydol 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. For some reason, it seems to be a common misconception that categories and lists are interchangeable. They are not - please see WP:CLS. fbb_fan 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Remove the ones that don't have IMDB entries, keep the rest even if they don't yet have Wikipedia articles. I will take care of that. Augurr 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete names that don't have IMDB entries. That is not a valid resource for gay pornography; it's barely tenable for mainstream films—there's a page there for me, for example. I'm listed as "Other crew" in a documentary that won an Academy Award; I was on staff at the company that was the subject of the documentary.—Chidom ^talk  00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, point well taken. My boyfriend's porn collection would've made a much better source. I regret I made him get rid of it. Having said that, we still need to find some way of gauging which of these actors are notable enough. Augurr 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A guideline for porn stars is developing at WP:PORN BIO; however, bear in mind that notability is not required by any Wikipedia policy.—Chidom ^talk  00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if some content in the article violates some WP rule, remove it; we don't remove the whole article. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with this argument is simple. To fix the policy violations we have to remove all the names that aren't verified by the list's article. Right now that's all the names if you read the policy strictly. If you read the policy in a looser way, the blue-linked names can be kept because the articles should be verified. But that leaves a list that's either the same as the category, or it has even fewer names. If we fix the list to meet the WP:BIO policy it's redundant with the category. If we're not going to fix the list, the article can't stay. So either way it should be deleted. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What exactly would "fix" the list? The list explicitly defines who is listed: "male pornographic actors who appear in gay films". The header goes on to say that no claim is being made about the sexual orientation of anyone on the list. If the actor is listed in the cast of a movie and has sex with another man in that movie, he qualifies for the list. Cast lists are available at the links that are provided in the "See also" section of the page. I've copied two of the sites that were listed on the talk page to this section. Some of the sites allow you to search by an actor's name and retrieve a list of films that he is in; a commercial site may only list films that they have in stock. (tlavideo also lists films that are not available.) So where's the verifiability problem?—Chidom ^talk  00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Sounds to me like there isn't a problem. fbb_fan 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment certainly not to delete the entire article. New York City has unsourced statements, so should we delete it too? The jihadis here would no doubt like that. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Lists of non-notable pornografic actors are unencyclopedic, IMO, and the notable ones are already listed in the category. Non compliance with WP:V is also problematic. Eluchil404 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

*Comment. Again, how is it not in compliance with WP:V? Sources are listed and reliable.—Chidom ^talk  09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the names must be individually sourced. Just listing outside sites and saying "look him up there" isn't good enough. Jimbo Wales has said solid sourcing for claiming somebody is a porn star (gay or straight) is "absolutely imperative." That's why I say WP should keep the category and delete the list. The category names are supposed to be verified already since they're in articles. All those unlinked names in the list aren't WP:verified -- they need specific, reliable citations. At least one of those outside sites is useless -- it just gives a not-alphabetized list of names. (All the As are together, but not in order, etc.) Another links to semispam sites with no way of proving that the names match the pictures. I get spam all the time about porn with Jennifer Lopez, Allysa Milano, etc. The pages are there, the porn pix are there -- but the pictures aren't JLo or Milano. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems overkill to have a list and acategory.--Runcorn 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, discounting single purpose-accounts. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Thomas Dunn

Vanity page, non-notable subject Tsimshatsui 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Tsimshatsui (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios

• Delete: Furthermore, he adds himself to other pages. Maximumlobster 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Usually I'm a bit suspicious about a new user filing an AFD as their first edit ever since it usually implies they're already familiar with WP policies and have gained experience under a different account. However, I'm quite concerned about the notability of this person considering that his IMDb mini-biography is written by "Anonymous" and all contributions to this article have been either from IP addresses or User:Dodgem4s which smells strongly of a Wikipedia:Autobiography violation not to mention Wikipedia:Vanity per nom. A Google search for ("Michael thomas dunn" -wikipedia) which returns 1,430 hits. The first five pages returns either his own website or directory listings. I'm now filing separate AFDs for all his studio and movies. Fails: Wikipedia:Reliable sources test. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I, for one, was anonymous for a long time before I created an account. Anonymity is not an indicator of bad faith. Uncle G 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I assure you, my first edit under a username was not made with negative intentions. After a long time of anonymity, Michael Thomas Dunn's article drove me to get more involved after he listed himself under "famous alumni" at UCF. I only want Wikipedia to be a better resource for all and I look forward to contributing more in the future. Tsimshatsui 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Not sufficiently notable. Legis 10:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable actor. *drew 11:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is not a mainstream actor, granted. Just because he acts in independent short films doesn't mean he isn't an actor. He is just a regional one. I'm seen in 2 films at the Florida Film Festival over the past couple of years. He is also listed on All Movie Guide, Internet Movie Database, New York Times, MSN movies and quite of few others. — Possible single purpose account: Paulag1248 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. 17:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: There is nothing in the Wikipedia agreements that state that actors of the stage or of independent films can not be listed on wiki. This is probably a personal attack against said actor. Several links to major commercial movie sites are included on this page. These complaints have no basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.170.7.60 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 August 2006.

• Reply: Please read the Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines.
  And please don't remove any more AFD notices or remove other people's comments or else Wikipedia:Requests for page protection will come into play and you won't even be allowed to voice your opinion here. We've already banned one of your accounts for 31 hours. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete: Wikipedia needs more content on Independent Film -- Not less. I see nothing objectionable on the pages listed on the AFD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.170.48.94 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: Just another person hating on UCF and its growin success. Probably a UF or FSU fanboy.

— Possible single purpose account: Jennyangel97 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Do Not Delete: Since people are upset about that these submissions were made mostly by one user -- I plan to make some additions and contributions to these pages listed for an AFD. He is a hometown success story -- His work for the film community has been instrumental in attracting more film projects to the area. GoldenKnight07 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Again with the comment removal: [30] --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well documented nom and per Maximumlobster. It is particularly distasteful when people like Michael Thomas Dunn spam Wikipedia. GBYork 12:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about all this. It seems that both sides are spamming to me. But I don't think that any rules are being broken and don't see what would be gained from deletion. Honestly, Wiki lists porn stars -- many of which are pretty obscure, too. Whatever. Don't like a show, change the channel. Don't like a web site, don't read it.

I don't recall reading anything on Wiki that stated that I couldn't invite my friends to partipate in discussions. I have many contributions over the past year to Wiki (I am no where near a single user account) -- a large portion were the articles mentioned on the AFD, but I have also contributed to content regarding Florida history, theme parks, automobiles, video games, heavy trucks and other topics I am familar with. I will make any changes that are suggested. But so far, no suggestions have been made. I will break it down: A. These Pages meet Wiki's Reliable Sources: I have cited several newspaper articles (New York Times/Orlando Business Journal/Central Florida Future) confirm the info. B. Wiki's Non-Notable Subject: the Subject is also listed on many other entertainment web sites. C. "Delete per well documented nom" - Not a single user has once tried to rebute any of the facts I have listed. DodgeM4S

Reply You might check WP:SPAM, Article #3 to make sure you are not violating that. GBYork 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for pointing out the SPAM policy and I just re-read it-- but inviting friends and local newsgroup readers does not appear to violate the Wiki policy in any way. I think this debate is definitely useful -- and I'm looking to improve the quality of all the content I have submitted, not just the ones listed in the APD. Another contribution I made to a theme park was deemed a little too POV/opinionated -- so I fixed it. All I ask is you make constructive suggestions that I can use to remedy any of the content. I've put a lot of effort in all the content submitted -- and think it has made wikipedia a more complete source of information.... which has been my goal all along. I do wish I registered earlier, as I had made many earlier contributions as anonymous -- that is the reason my credited contributions seem lopsided. But I've been a contributor for about a year and a half now. By any chance, Is there a concensus of what exactly needs fixing? I'd be happy make these corrections. -DodgeM4S

• Comment: No, there isn't any policy against inviting friends and coworkers -- they'll just be more likely ignored per the Wikipedia:Single purpose account guideline by the administrator making the final decision. So far I've only seen one source that passes the Wikipedia:Reliable source test, the Orlando Business Journal and if you provide at least two more article in the same vein, I'd be willing to change my vote altogether. I don't count the New York Times and VH1 links because they're not articles but movie synopsises that can be self-submitted to the All Movie Guide. Look, come back in a year or two's time and recreate the article if Dunn produces a film that wins a major film festival award or is distributed nation-wide. My philosophy when it comes to notability is that one is only truly notable when other people are writing about them, not when they write about themselves or have their coworkers or friends do it for them. We have to take a hard-line stance on notability because everything in an encyclopedia has to be verifiable. For example, how could any reader ever determine if Dunn really "owns a collection of performance cars and classic automobiles"? How can I accept that anything written in the Trivia section is true or made up? I can't -- because no 3rd parties are constantly providing new information that we can use to scrutinise the article's contents with. We have to take your word alone -- and that's simply unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Dunn's feature film [Alone and Restless] will be released on DVD nationwide in February. DodgeM4S
• Reply: Since you raised concerns over the ability to verify the trivia information, I have deleted the section. The bio comes from an official site, so I'd imagine its accurate. DodgeM4S
• Comment Perhaps you could userfy the article -- get it out of the Wikipedia namespace -- and keep it as a user page until you get it up to snuff. That would stop the single purpose account people, because as User:Netsnipe says, they will be discounted anyway and the fact your article draws that type to vote ends up making your article look bad rather than helping. GBYork 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: userfy is Wikipedia slang for moving an article to userspace (which means it's no longer an article in an encyclopedia, but a personal page / article in progress). To do so, copy and paste the original article into a new page called User:Dodgem4s/original_article_name. This means that even if this article is deleted, you can still continue to work on it and when you believe that the article will pass a future AFD review, you are free to move it back into the encyclopedia proper. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if its more newspaper sources you need -- that really isn't a problem. They just aren't online any more (most newspapers delete their content after a few months). But I've saved lots of newspaper articles regarding the local film industry. I'm going to UCF to join the film school, but I just a sophomore still (not in the film school yet). I'd be happy to photocopy any of them and mail them to any of the editors. I've been collecting news clipping since 1998 when the Blair Witch Project came out. I've got a ton of stuff on local feature films like Blair Witch, Flora Plum, The Bros., Jurrassic Park III, Alone and Restless, Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector, Olive Juice, etc. I've also got articles for the TV shows: Carpocolypse, Sheena, From Earth to the Moon and the Pet Psychic. I know I've got at least 2 articles on Alone and Restless, I think I got one on Black Zone, too. I can Userfy if necessary -- but it would be a lot of work to Userfy all the submissions that are flagged. Which ones would I need to userfy and which ones already meet Wiki guidelines? As for the trivia section -- its almost all cut and pasted off of IMDb. The bio, I cut and pasted off the official site. Perhaps I should cut and paste the content to another Wiki article I've been working on Florida Film Industry. Suggestions????? DodgeM4S

I would like to point out that WP: VAIN states this: "an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent." This policy does not expressly prohibit content on subjects that are considered little-known -- and how many "indie" filmmakers are considered well-known? I think his occupation puts him at a unfair disadvantage. But as per wiki guidelines, even if he is deemed little-known by an administrator that still does not prohibit the content of the above articles The articles are very credible, neutral and independent. ...and any passages to the contrary I would be happy to delete. DodgeM4S

I would also like to argue on the grounds WP: PORN BIO -- Why is it so much more difficult for an independent film maker to be considered relavent to Wikipedia than a porn star? Does a Porn Star need 3-4 third party newspaper interviews (since movie synopsis don't count) to be deemed notable and how many porn stars actually have been flagged for the lack of these newspaper articles? DodgeM4S

• Reply: Porn star articles get deleted very frequently I can assure you. You just haven't been participating in other Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion to have known about them. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Every time you've edited this page, it becomes a total mess (e.g. [31]) with your comments always right between my comment and signature, your links are always invalid, and you totally screw up the formatting of everyone else's comments. Please learn to use preview. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not seem to meet criteria for notability.--Runcorn 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply As I has posted earlier, I gave several examples that all above articles meet the Wikipedia notability articles. I also politely request that you re-read the Wiki notibility guidelines WP:BIO, specifically the section that states, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below generally merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

--DodgeM4S 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• ADDITIONAL NOTES Please keep in mind that these flagged articles were never intended to stand solely by themselves. This content was written as supplemental components to the comprehensive history of the Florida Film Industry that I've been working on. I'm also concerned that other independent films that I've posted will be flagged and deleted for similar Notability reasons (and wish to protect them now). I wrote submissions for Olive Juice and Walking Across Egypt which like Alone and Restless are not notable mainstream Hollywood films -- yet all were historically important to this area as more Independent Filmmakers choose to shoot here. I plan to continue submitting information on independent film, but I'm a little shocked by all the hostility towards Indie films on Wiki..... Of course, I was also shocked to discover while writing the Florida Film Industry page that the locally produced HBO miniseries From Earth to the Moon had no Wiki coverage, either. Don't worry, I'm working on the content for that TV show, too.

--DodgeM4S 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• QUESTION So is it all right to list other indepedent film makers, too? I am working on content for prominant local independent filmmaker/actor [32] Todd Thompson. Again this submission would be a component to my Florida Film Industry page.

--DodgeM4S 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List of U.S. law firms

A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this. Legis 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For all the reasons set out in the discussion relation to deletion of the primary list - it serves no purpose that is not already covered by Category:United States law firms, and it is just an invitation for lawyers to spam. Legis 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Lists can surpass a category by having information about the firms. The largest subsection does, however it really is not that useful. The spam target issue is more of a concern to me than the minimal information about size of firms. GRBerry 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because there is no uniform definition of what a "law firm" is. Does a law school grad who hangs out a shingle his/her own "law firm". Do 2 people who set up a law practice together constitute a "law firm". If we had a list like the UK one below where these are listed by size, we would get rid of the problem. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 22 August 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 keep. --CharlotteWebb 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of largest UK law firms

A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this one. Legis 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For all the reasons set out in the discussion relation to deletion of the primary list - it serves no purpose that is not already covered by Category:United Kingdom-based law firms, and it is just an invitation for lawyers to spam. Legis 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - List is solely based on size, and includes some data on the practice areas of the firms. These features are not replacable by categories, GRBerry 15:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Need expanding to not simply be a raw list, however has clear criteria for inclusion (even if possibly a copyvio?), and most of the firms listed are rednames, making this only doable as a list (and very handy to point out needed content) LinaMishima 15:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful list, by size excludes all the mini- and wannabe- law firms; we have lists of longest bridges, tallest women, yadda-yadda-yadda, that all add to the categorization scheme. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep size criterion guards against indiscriminate addition of nn firms and annotations of turnover provide added value Eluchil404 02:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Israeli law firms

A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this one. Legis 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For all the reasons set out in the discussion relation to deletion of the primary list - it serves no purpose that is not already covered by Category:Law firms in Israel, and it is just an invitation for lawyers to spam. Legis 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Largest and largest patent sections have non-category features, however "Other" is spam-bait. No real content to justifhy keeping the list. GRBerry 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not enough content to justify a seperate list. Eluchil404 02:30, 24 August 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.