Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 27 August 29 >

Purge server cache





















































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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Malan Breton[edit]

Malan Breton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nominate deletion of article on not very reknowned designer whose only claims to notability were being mentioned as one of 12 to watch by 'Women's Wear Daily' magazine, and having appeared on Project Runway (but was eliminated very early on). Ohconfucius 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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



















































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A8 both -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vital dexterity records and Vital Dexterity Records (copy)[edit]

[Check Google hits] less than 300. Indie label that's NN under WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also added Vital Dexterity Records, a copy article. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright violation Replaced articles and AfD notice with CopyVio template. Entire blanking appears to be correct procedure, including notices, and technically copyvio is more easily dealable with. Text is from their website's about page.... LinaMishima 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — nn Google hits (non-wiki, english): 79. Also, if it's a copyvio, then it should be deleted immediately.. Shouldn't it? :s --Deon555talkReview 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, copyvio gets deleted quite simply because if they really want an article, it is better for them to work from a blank slate. This helps people avoid copyright violations. LinaMishima 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under CSD A8. talk to JD wants e-mail 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All species are notable. Basing a species article's right to exist on Google hits, once it has been proven to exist, is ridiculous. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic jackknife clam[edit]

This artical is very small and not very informing, if someone wants to learn about the Atlantic Jacknife Clam they will not be informed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M6gt2k6 (talk • contribs) . (Completed unfinished AfD nomination -- Scientizzle 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Strong Keep Atlantic jackknife clam is, in my opinion, a short, but useful stub. This was an attempted bad-faith nom in response to my nomination of M6gt2k6's Dragonball UD for deletion. Nominator failed to finish this AfD and instead moved on to blanking several articles (many that I indicate on my user page as having created or contributed to)[1] [2] [3] [4]. -- Scientizzle 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the article isn't the most informative around, but there seems to be a precedent for keeping species pages, however stubby, for future expansion. Espresso Addict 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Whilst i agree that stubs are not the best of things, this article has references, and enough information to allow it to be expanded out to a full article. With references and notability (all distinct species can be considered this), it's hard to argue for deletion. LinaMishima 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep edit history of nom makes it clear this is a bad faith nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep although article is not the greatest, no legitimate claim can be made that is should not exist.-- danntm T C 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knife Edge Neutral — Looks good enough to become a stub, but on the borderline of non notable with only 80 hits from google] Deon555talkReview 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chumby[edit]

[Check Google hits] as far as I can tell a NN product, and the article needs a rewrite even if kept. Company's site is down, which doesn't bode well for it. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NN product? A number of blogs have entries for actual use/hacks/autopsies of the chumby. --x1987x(talk) 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, personal blogs are almost never reliable sources per WP:RS. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the corporate website would be, right? That google hit link, has the corporate website as the second entry. I understand that blogs aren't reliable sources, but the product information would be. Please give this article a chance. It only released 2 days ago. google cache--x1987x(talk) 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The company's own advertising does not count towards notability. Non-trivial published works have to be written by other people, independent of the company. See WP:CORP. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — 9,280 hits from Google is good enough to keep I say Deon555talkReview 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google locates. The very first page that Google lists, for example, doesn't even contain the word "Chumby". Many of the others in the first 20 are random people who are using this either as a pseudonym or as a random nonsense word, or even people who have this particular surname. If you want to make a case for keeping, demonstrate notability by citing sources that are about the subject, not by counting hits. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<after ec>A vast majority of those google hits have absolutely nothing to do with this product. If you include something more specific in a "Chumby" search, such as "device" you get 55 distinct hits, and 266MHz ARM gets one. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly appears to be a legitimate product. If it hadn't just been announced at a trade show, I'd vote delete because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The product announcement for early next year is sufficient in my book. Erechtheus 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough to start the page; worthwile to expand. --x1987x(talk) 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What notability criteria are you using? How does this subject satisfy your criteria? We have criteria for products and services at WP:CORP. How does this subject satisfy those criteria? Please cite sources. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a product only recently launched. I had hoped some users might have more information about the technical specs.--129.116.73.88 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above: What notability criteria are you using? How does this subject not satisfy your criteria? We have criteria for products and services at WP:CORP. How does this subject not satisfy those criteria? Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete <after ec> currently a not notable product. And problems with verifiability and reliable sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) A bit more specific for Uncle G, specifically, the product fails both criteria one and two of WP:Corp Criteria for products and services. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:X1987x has been spamming people who support deletion, asking them to change their minds. My view has not changed. I don't think company released product information and a small number of articles and blogs meets CORP. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reputable sources can be provided, otherwise delete under Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. talk to JD wants e-mail 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable sources will appear shortly. It was just released late Friday, August 25th, few news sites have the ability to cover the product since their staff is probably out for the weekend. The product is "in the wild" and released to a limited few. Google rates links by popularity, as soon as it starts spidering the hundreds of blogs about the product, the corporate site will be top on the list. --x1987x(talk) 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[5] O'Reilly Radar the sponsers of Foo camp have an original first-person writeup. Corporate blog.--x1987x(talk) 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be reputable sources now, before the article was written even. Wouldn't the company who made it have something on their website? talk to JD wants e-mail 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The product does not yet appear to pass any of the criteria for product under WP:CORP. The product's existence merely eliminates attack under WP:HOAX, but does not imply notability in any way. The future success or otherwise of a recently launched product from an unknown company would be too weak to justify an entry under WP:NOT. Note that x1987x is author of the page under AfD. Ohconfucius 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, unverifiable. If reliable sources are provided, than its a keep. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable and unverifiable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems real enough: Hackaday MikeMorley 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't imagine why anyone would want something like this, but it does seem notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many products are announced at shows, but some never see the light of day. No independent articles for the product appear to have been published. I don't see where the criteria for WP:CORP has been met.
  1. There currently aren't any independent articles about the product. They may be written in the future, but as of right now, they simply don't exist.
  2. The product is not so well known as to be suffering from genericization.
--Whpq 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's now 5 original articles from companies other than the manufacturer. About the possibility of a hoax, [6]100 prototypes were passed out at Foo. The product exists but hasn't been finalized. --x1987x(talk) 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotion. Mukadderat 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as seen here: The product exists but hasn't been finalized. Whispering(talk/c)
    Comment x1987x is canvassing for keep votes.
  • Weak Delete, per WP:NOT but if the author can find better sources showing it's notability, then I'll change my vote to keep.Ramsquire 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are now two magazine articles cited in the article, which I do believe satisfies WP:CORP. Erechtheus 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those articles satisfy CORP for me, namely: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." I don't see those articles as "non-trivial." My delete stands. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm not sure what criteria you're specifying for non-trivial. It was my understanding that examples of trivial coverage include reprints of press releases or listing of hours of operation. Am I missing something else? Erechtheus 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotion --T-rex 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the same spirit as the Sony Mylo, people come to Wikipedia to find out more information on a currently unreleased product. The product itself is notable, as there does not seem to be any direct competitors as of yet. It is alone in its category of bedside computer. Eptin 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Product website is back up --x1987x(talk) 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above too. -- bruce89 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has references, is notable (first product launch at O'riely's foocamp), hence keep LinaMishima 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TMC1221 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are not good reasons to delete it: it's notable, "crystal ball" does not apply, and WINP. And even if it were a flop, failures get articles too.
  • Keep per being extremelly interesting. Linux based, Open PCB design, etc. It's an interesting initiative exploring interesting new ideas. It does not matter whether it succeeds commercially or not, which is yet to be seen.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotion. Interesting product idea, for sure, but anyone else remember Kerbango, which never shipped at all after similar buzz? -- PKtm 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep obviously notable product. don't see what discussion is about. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Deville (Talk) 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chad[edit]

Non-notable individual purporting fame from an appearance in his local American Idol audition. Only real claim is an article in Rolling Stone talking about their favourite kook from the audition. I think he does not meet WP:BIO -- Samir धर्म 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obviously. I have been on TV more than once - perhaps there should be an article about me too? Bravada, talk - 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom --Deon555talkReview 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real reliable sources with non-trivial media mentions, fails WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second video is currently a feautured video on the YouTube homepage with 127,999 views! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. talk to JD wants e-mail 03:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others, The Chad is a person of note, with Hundreeds of Thousands of views on YouTube, neumerous articles in the press and a loyal fan following - Lbotv 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - user had 12 edits at the moment of me writing that, with 8 to the article in question and the last one to this page. Bravada, talk - 09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment YouTube views do not count for notability or basically anything at all. He could have 3 or 3billion views. Doesn't matter. --Brian (How am I doing?) 08:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Provide some more peer-reviewed sources other than "Youtube". Rollingstone is weak alone. Being reported on in the news doesn't make someone noteworthy. I can go hold up a donut shop, make the 5 o'clock news, and send the video to Youtube. Can I be on Wikipedia then? I think not. -Shazbot85Talk 06:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He did not recieve notoriety from an event that can really be considered newsworthy. Local American Idol tryouts don't garner national coverage and his mention in Rolling Stone seems like 15 seconds of fame rather than 15 minutes. I am steadfast in my delete decision. -Shazbot85Talk 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 15 seconds is very generous. The Rolling Stone thing isn't the print magazine, it isn't even their featured articles... it's their rock and roll daily blog. I closed the browser window after much fewer than 15 seconds on that page. :P --Kinu t/c 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you look up the chad idol on google, you get this guy. The entry could use more work and citations, but it should stay. 24.46.72.72 06:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IP showed 5 edits at the moment of me writing that, with 3 to the article in question and the last one to this page. Bravada, talk - 09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps we should have an article on that guy they interviewed on the sidewalk for the 10 o'clock news about longer green lights for pedestrians. Signaturebrendel 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO, the high number of viewers on YouTube does not meet the notability criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly unecylopedic. Wikipedia is not a guide to everything on YouTube. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Ramsquire 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noted Idol kooks. Tens of millions of people know this guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From his appearance? Or from YouTube?Shazbot85Talk 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters athletics (track and field)[edit]

Both CSD and prod removed by original author, so AFDing. There's so little context here, I was speedying it as nonsense. I really have no idea what this is... seems like a POV essay. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, I'm typing as fast I can! Trust me, I know my stuff. I helped Len Olson write "Masters Track & Field: A History." I'm a career journalist and masters athlete for 10 years. This would be the first mention of masters track on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrackCEO (talk • contribs) .
  • Then you are admitting that the article consists of nothing more than Original research? (|-- UlTiMuS 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah, assume good faith, that they simply are stating that they know how to research an article properly. LinaMishima 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masters track field is huge. Many former Olympians and prfessional athletes compete, Willie Gault for one.[7] Even if this is a stub it should be kept. If you have trouble with the POV then edit the article. We don't AfD articles due to POV. David D. (Talk) 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Possible original research and 15 Google hits --Deon555talkReview 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Note that the systematic bias of the internet results in sporting events, particularly athletics, being under-covered compared to other areas. Hence the value of a google test is deminished. LinaMishima 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • a proper google test of "Masters athletics" (with forums and blogs removed to meet WP:RS) gives us 12,900 - about what you'd expect for a non-major sporting event type. Google's news search gives us five results, which is reasonable coverage again (especially given that the news search is not anywhere near as deep as google main, in my experience). The related newsgroups have been talking about this since 1999 [8]. Google scholar, whilst not my normally prefered tool for journal article hunting, suggests an impressive 46 papers!. LinaMishima 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once referenced There's dozens of wonderful references, so once these have been worked in, the article will have a very strong case for staying. See above for the proper webhunt test results LinaMishima 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep! Track and Field is in general competed in age and gender classes, staring with young kids (who would be somewhat discouraged, I think you'll agree, if they had to compete against 20-30 year old Open athletes) and commencing again with 40-44, 45-49 and so on. Without this highly developed and organized system, Athletics would be restricted to the elite, all of whom were once kids, so the sport would die out in a matter of years. There are international organizations (in particular the WMA) which govern and certify Masters Track and Field (MTF); every other year there is a World Championship, frequently involving thousands of athletes. So you need to check your sources before you go referring to this as "a POV essay". Ken Stone is probably the most eloquent spokesman for MTF, and is highly respected as a journalist. If you find his input too opinionated or colourful, well, revise it to your taste; I'm sure many others will too -- that's what a wiki is for. But don't insult a large, earnest and respectable community by deleting the topic.JHBrewer 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The World Masters Games attracted over 21,000 atheletes [9] to Edmonton, Alberta last year, and will be in Sydney in 2009. The article requires some work, but the topic is clearly notable. Resolute 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real sport with World Championships and a somewhat substantial following. Punkmorten 07:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep! Perhaps a cleanup is in order? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source it and cleanup, seems quite notable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources need to be cited, but that shouldn't be a problem -- Whpq 13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no credible reason to delete this. Piccadilly 13:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful information as more boomers look for recreational and competitive opportunities. A good sport to consider when practicing on your own or with a group. barrier22154 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Petri Krohn 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly acceptable entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.112.252 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Many notable athletes compete in masters track and field. It is run under the IAAF umbrella so it is definitely a notable area of sport. David D. (Talk) 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compete Toolbar[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable product. "Complete Toolbar" gets 623 g-hits (up from 582 when I added a prod tag a few days ago). Most are unrelated. BigDT 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst... that's "Compete" without an l. JIP | Talk 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... it's not a notable product either ;) BigDT 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non notable - 303 hits from Google atm Deon555talkReview 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even fewer hits when you remove Wikipedia from the search. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment In fact, if you remove forums and blogs as well and omit related results, all you're left with is a handful of plugin-download websites... Make of this what you will... LinaMishima 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable product. Bigtop 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? - Technorati Links - from many top-100 blogs All stats/blog posts are based on toolbar. Just going through their Technorati link list - very recently linked by many top-100 blogs - list includes John Battelle, Micropersuasion, Read/Writeweb, etc. Appears to be growing in notability rapidly 10:31, 27 August 2006 (EST)
    • reply whilst I support using the blogshere to support keeping certain articles, these tend to be social ones that have no hope of otherwise breaking out from the blogsphere and yet are famous throughout it. Programs and plugins, however, can be reliably referenced by a review within an industry magazine, which means we should not rely on weak sources. Thought you'd like an explaination to understand my voting. LinaMishima 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete software doesn't appear to be notable. talk to JD wants e-mail 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but mainly WP:NOTE. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the following reasons:

1. Article is like an advertisement. 2. It is not notable yet. 3. Few results when you don't include the Wikipedia page as part of the search. --TheM62Manchester 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CpapforMedicare.com[edit]

nn website Hojl 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as successful prod. (Side note: Check out the nominator's contributions. There's something fishy in the sudden trend of newbies AfDing articles right away, although I've no idea what.) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engvocab.com[edit]

nn website. Hojl 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed because the article was boldly redirected. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.cardomain.com[edit]

Spam. Hojl 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Not _really_ spam: lots of websites have articles. 869,000 hits on Google, i say it should stay :) --Deon555talkReview 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cardomain. Notable site, redundant article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. -Elmer Clark 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as most of the content reads as breeching NPOV. Website has an alexa rank of 2,500... not bad! Given that we already have the material and a redirect will almost certainly happen, can we get this closed now? LinaMishima 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect most of the article is POV or unsourced claims, either way it's not right for Wikipedia. The only neutral information in the article is the part about when the company was founded. talk to JD wants e-mail 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Provide something besides the website itself to show it's notability. Has it been mentioned anywhere such as car magazines or television shows? Also, the information in the article needs to be sourced if it's going to stay. -Shazbot85Talk 07:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cardomain. This is a pretty large and well-known auto website, with an Alexa rank of 2521, but the current version is a redundant version and not written in an encyclopedic tone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just redirected it to Cardomain. Almost all the information was nearly word-for-word the same. Anyone can do a redirect, it's quite simple really. Just type #, then REDIRECT with no spaces, then do a standard link to the destination. No need for everyone to "vote" redirect in an AFD if it's obvious that's what should be done... be like Nike and "Just do it!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs)
    • Normally, once an article is up for deletion we don't take any action until the comment period has passed. But, I agree this is an obvious redirect. — brighterorange (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metamagician3000 11:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Marietta Football Club[edit]

Non-notable local football club. ghits:[10]. NM]]Chico24 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The California Tea Company[edit]

nn corp Hojl 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per nom --Deon555talkReview 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but argument could be made for deletion.-Kmaguir1 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reputable sources sources can be provided to assert notability, otherwise delete. talk to JD wants e-mail 04:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable; no reason given why somebody should spend time cleaning up the text. --Sean Lotz 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The company is as non-notable as its tea, which scores only 2 hits (both from Wiki), although Bloomingdales and Neiman Marcus apparently sell Artesian tableware (including an "Artesian Teapot"). Artesian Tea is a related article nominated for deletion below (item 57). Ohconfucius 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above notability concerns (WP:CORP) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent, reliable sources cited in the article and I could not find any, so fails multiple mentions test in WP:CORP. Does not appear close to passing any of the other tests. JChap2007 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence this meets WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No results in search for stock ticker symbol. Plinth molecular gathered 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Torant[edit]

Notability not established (per User:Tmorton166 and User:Zoe). And somehow I don't think "all people are notable" is a good enough rationale for removing the prod. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete /wangi 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambok[edit]

The decision was to Delete --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Tagged as a hoax, only hits on Google refer to this page. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clear joke, and in the unlikely event that it's true, it doesn't give any indication of notability. -Elmer Clark 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well, there is no official policy on notability, but WP:V is an official policy on English Wikipedia. And with all due respects, I have to disagree with your statement by stating that this article is a clear joke. For instance, please view this website. Notice that the footnotes at the end of this page contains some credible sources on this subject as well. However, I am not sure if it is WP:RS. Moreover, the first sentence of this article states that the game was invented by a certain Addkq Dääd, which I feel is likely to be an untrue statement. Perhaps a major re-write of this article is required here. And let me add that the nominator's statement is incorrect. Google shows about 300 hits for this term and quite a number of them refers to different websites on this topic. Further research have to be done here before making a conclusive decision about this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per Elmer Clark (~330 edits on Google) --Deon555talkReview 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 03:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the game of cambok as described on website is substantially different than the one described in this Wikipedia article. I do not dispute that there is a game called "cambok" that exists/existed, but I don't think it relates at all to the version of cambok presented in this article. I cannot find a link to anything similar to this article that doesn't reference this exact same Wikipedia article as their source. At any rate, by the author's own admission, the sport "is not very popular", which, if I understand the guidelines correctly, is not acceptable, anyway. Am I correct in my assumption? I'm new here and just getting the hang of the processes involved with major editing/deletion, so please forgive me if I've stepped on any toes. Mutableye 05:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Then, is it possible to completely rewrite this article? However, on second thoughts, this article which is in Wikipedia is a hoax! --Siva1979Talk to me 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax. Invented by "Addkq Dääd". JIP | Talk 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The contents in this article is a complete hoax upon further research. However, once this article is deleted, re-creating the page with a completely different content is the most appropriate course of action here. Cambok certainly could be verified given the number of websites dedicated to this sport. But the sport in question is definitely not notable. The current content, however, warrants a total deletion. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete apparent hoax. JChap2007 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Nigel (Talk) 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Strong consenus that it was mainly unreliable blog-work.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories[edit]

This was originally a five PROD, I'm not too sure so I'm bringing it to AfD. Yanksox 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Speculation and a timeline of bloggers' posts. --Daniel Olsen 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I believe Wikipedia should definitely try to include as much info as possible. This really appears to be nothing more than information taken from very unreliable sources. This article also fails in the sense that it uses unreliable sources to make very unsubstantiable and very inflammatory remarks. The likely motivation for the quotes that were made were likely racist in nature (not the contributor who posted this article, but the quotes used in the statements). An article that is heavily dependant on quotes like these from unreliable sources which are heavily POV generally fails to meet the NPOV requirement, even if the article itself is not giving any credibility to these quotes. This is because posting these quotes gives inherent credibility, and no attempt has been made to counteract the statements. I feel the article should deleted due it s inherent inflammatory nature, and the fact almost no real facts are presented as support. Nlsanand 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorta weak Delete Seems unverifiable to me (speculation?) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been mentioned on mainstream press, has verified images, etc. It's as much an entry as 9/11 CT's. Yossiea 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The noteworthy parts of this article can already be found in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies. Korny O'Near 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we delete this, we must delete the page on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If anything, there seems to be more evidence supporting the Qana CTs than the 9/11 CTs. If we delete ALL pages referencing ANY conspiracy theories on any subject, then I would support deleting this one. Valtam 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this should normally be merged, but there is enough information here that it merits an article of it's own. - Blood red sandman 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I disagree, Blood red sandman. A significant amount of the article shouldn't be kept at all. The sources are blogs, and news stations citing blogs. Merge into 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies per Korny O'Near. Picaroon9288|ta co 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mukadderat 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nlsanand, whatever verifiable claims exist can be (and generally have been) moved to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies. TewfikTalk 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we keep other articles that just restate arguments pro- & con- in the Mideast: Allegations of Israeli apartheid, for example. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a blog aggregator or a mostly indiscriminate collection of allegations. Individual parts can be merged into the controversies article linked to above. Sandstein 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nlsnand and Sandstein. This compilation of blogs etc. is pure original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tewfik --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't seen any media sources the place I live carry stories about Qana being a conspiracy. Besides, there are conspiracy theories for every event that takes place; we can't keep including them in WP. --Bluerain (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While elements of the article are not OR and the matter has been mentioned in at least two reliable sources, Yedioth Ahronoth and the Jerusalem Post, Bluerain is correct in that conspiracy theories about everything exist. Since the vast majority of the article currently cites blogs which don't meet WP:RS and is largely original research, we would not lose much by deleting this version of the article and making a new article later if such conspiracy theories become more prominent. Userfication might also make sense if the user wants to work on it make it less OR and more WP:RS/WP:V compliant (as well as possibly finding more sources pointing to notability). JoshuaZ 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-reliable sources. A small mention of these theories as reported by reliable sources is already available at Qana_airstrike#Allegations_of_a_hoax_and_of_staging ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, WP:WING, Vancarlimospacecraft, and whatever other shortcuts can be thrown at this. In my opinion, this pales in comparison with 9/11 conpiracy theories, most of which are non-notable in themselves, but some have entered mainstream psyche. This was a small event for which concpiracy theories are just more grist for the bloggospheric mill, not Wikipedia. Avi 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nlsanand. Bibigon 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reliable parts of this article can and somewhat are covered in other articles currently. ---Xcrem 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Korny O'Near. --tickle me 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge merge the reliable sources into the relevant articles and ensure that sources are not blogs. --Ben Houston 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I am having trouble finding any part of this article that is not in volation of NOR. Instead of merging it (subtracting all OR, that would leave us with nothing to merge) with good articles let´s just keep improving good articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Slrubenstein says, I think this article is basically unrecoverable. It's just a compilation of blogospheric speculation and violates all of the fundamental Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR etc). The random rantings of bloggers who possess an inflated sense of self-importance are patently not a fit subject for an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Evolver of Borg 03:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs a re-write and a serious effort to shorten it. However it has as much accuracy as the plethora 2004 US election articles. If deleted, it will just come back in many places.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.63.236.141 (talk • contribs) 13:47, August 31, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin, above. Nothing else to say. Just the current minor footnote in the Qana airstrike page is enough. --Planetary 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the mere fact that there are conspiracy theories is, I suppose, important and interesting to readers, but the details are vagues and mostly speculation. Even the IDF doesn't promote these theories. There are two paragraphs about the conspiracy theories on the 2006 Qana airstrike article that more or less sums up the general feel of this longer article.--GHcool 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Conspiracy theories are indicative of political tendencies. Moreover, they are part of human cultural heritage. To strike them from Wikipedia would serve only thouse who want to turn WP in uniform grey, politically correct color. -- Tiphareth 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- as per Jayjg. The evidence is flimsy and the sources are unreliable.--Kitrus 11:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As before: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a source that controversial bloggers should want to point to to 'justify' conspiracy theories. The fact that media report on theories in blogs does not make them true. Let bloggers stick to blogging, let encyclopaedia's stick to proven truths. PP, 3 sept. 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 speedy delete CSD G4 of Rosster. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosster Records[edit]

Non-notable ringtone artist. User:Guysharpe was recently continuously creating the article Rosster which got protected by an admin ([11] Deletion log]). Now this article has popped up. Casper2k3 02:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I meant G4, you're right ;)
  • Speedy G4 if it's a similar recreation of something that's been XfDed before; otherwise, speedy G3 since this type of activity probably does fall under the purview of vandalism. --Kinu t/c 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was flagged as copyvio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Starz[edit]

Non-notable street gang, apparently. Aside from the brief intro paragraph, the whole article appears to be a news story, although as far as I can tell it's not a copyvio. 57 unique Google hits for "Seven Starz" -wikipedia, none of which appear to be relevant. Possible {WP:HOAX -Elmer Clark 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I'm retarded. The whole article, save about two sentences, is copyvio'd from the external link given. I guess I'll add that tag as well. -Elmer Clark 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hirooka Hajime[edit]

It was deleted because IMO it didn't demonstrate notability. Is there any independent source on this man? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreating the article is not going to help you. I've marked it as speedy since it was recreation of previously deleted material. Discuss it with CanadianCaesar before reposting it again. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did send him a message, since he was so quick on the draw to delete -- literally right in the middle of my editing / filling out the article. I got one sentence in for less than a few minutes before it was deleted. So develop an AfD if you're going to argue the tenuous "not notable" assertion (which, as an Inclusionist, I personally find quite silly). However, if you're looking for independent verification:
Suryadas 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above was pasted from Suryadas' talk page. I actually have no opinion on this article. Danny Lilithborne 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opinion other than that it should be deleted? ...since you created the AfD. And if not for not-notable, then what? ("When Deletionists and Inclusionists lock horns, in this episode of Wikipedia!" :P ) Suryadas 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This AfD is really procedural; I created it via an admin recommendation, since a prod would be generally pointless. Normally I don't AfD something on nn grounds unless it's monumentally so, but an admin thought this was speedy deletable. *shrug* Danny Lilithborne 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop calling editors names and start citing sources. A Google Web search is not a source. Uncle G 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Deletionist" and "Inclusionist" are more like industry terms; Danny even declares himself such with a userbox on his userpage. They're not pejoratives, unless you want to tangent into the factionalism/anti-factionalism debate. However, as he has said himself, this is more about process not nn for him; I respect that. As for the Google link... if you actually look at it, there are numerous travel guides online which independently reference Johnnie Walker for tours of Kyoto. It seemed to me more sensible to refer to the list-o-links than to mirror them here. Also, I did mean to imply, for CanadianCaesar who began the nn claim, that a quick Google search would have done more to clarify the notability issue than an immediate deletion. Suryadas 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • IgoUgo review of Johnnie Walker
        • Washingtonian
        • nicole.com review
        • Japan Guide Association
        • Andrew C. confirms he's cited in Lonely Planet (Lonely Planet)
          • Tangenting into factionalism is exactly what you were, and still are, doing. Please stop. Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the point of contention is not-notability, it seems relavent to me to point out that the significance of "notability" has an on-going debate within the Wikipedia community. "Notability" does not stand on its own, according to consensus, as a reason for deletion. Wiki is not paper. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You weren't doing that at all. You were name-calling. Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pointing to the Google list was not sensible. Google results vary from hour to hour and from minute to minute. Pointing to a Google search is not citing a source. Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find it interesting that WP:BIO specifically mentions the Google Test. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. Now please read where and how it mentions that test, and also read the article on that test that you just linked to, which discusses its fundamental flaws. Also note that you weren't even employing the Google Test. You just linked to a Google search and said, effectively, "There are the sources.". Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:BIO says "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" This is what I was referring to. The link I provided just that. Suryadas 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I wrote where and how. Please read the whole of WP:BIO. At the very least, read from the beginning of the section that you are quoting. Uncle G 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pointing to the actual source is citing a source. The above citations are a lot more like it. Addressing them: The first is a self-submission web site. The second supplies a couple of sentences of information about this person xyrself, but is actually mostly about Kyoto. The third is the same, and is someone's personal web-site. The fifth merely confirms that somewhere else is a source. The only substantial source is the fourth, which is good material for demonstrating that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. It claims to be a copy of an article in The Japan Times, but that isn't necessarily true. Where's the original? Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be clear, being included in Lonely Planet as a significant figure in Kyoto is not sufficient in your view? Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please address what I actually wrote, rather than straw men. Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability IMO either, perhaps if a major media outlet wrote or him I'd change views. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Again, not-notable is not enough. More criteria, as suggested by WP:BIO seem to be required by consensus to justify a deletion. Put from another perspective, see the Pokémon test. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That test is just as flawed as the Google Test. Please stop using silly tests that we have whole articles explaining the flaws of and please start citing and discussing sources that demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Sources are your best and only arguments. Use them! Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a tour guide?! Come on, people! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "C'mon..." an argument? Appeals to popularity and so-called "common-sense" are not valid. Suryadas 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some sources have been added to the article, and I think that the article now meets WP:BIO. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I vote to delete below because I can't see how it meets WP:BIO at all. Could you perhaps expand on your opinion or counter my argument, so that other people will be better able to decide what they think? — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion illustrates why it is usually best to compose an article off-line rather than using Wikipedia as a word processor. It also illustrates why premature speedy deletions are problematic. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain what you mean by "using Wikipedia as a word processor"? My understanding is that the whole point of Wiki (i.e. fast) is precisely to make lots of little edits, rather than a few big ones. Or is that not what you meant? Suryadas 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That it's best to make sure a new article is demonstrably keepable before you place it in the main article namespace, instead of creating a new, empty article, and expecting to be able to write it a sentence at a time, then getting all upset when someone speedys it before you've written the second sentence. This is not missing the point of a wiki: the point of a wiki is that an existing article can be corrected and expanded quickly, and requiring new articles to be easily distinguished from vanity or spam does not negate that point. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • False-positives of any deletion, particularly speedy, seems counter to WP:AGF. Zeal to delete vandalism/vanity should not come at the expense of legitimate contributions. IMHO, a dirty but information-rich encyclopedia is better than a clean but sparse one. Suryadas 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. The only criterion that could possibly be applied IMO is the last one, "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and while there are several press mentions referenced in the article, in none of them is this man the primary subject or covered non-trivially -- in all cases, he is mentioned only in passing and as just one of many aspects of a visit to Kyoto. As such, I argue that he does not meet that criterion, and therefore does not meet the inclusion guideline. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I agree with Haeleth. I don't see anything that establishes the subject meets WP:BIO. Only one source even comes close to being non-trivial mention of Hirooka Hajime, and one source is not enough for me, or for WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deville (Talk) 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade correlation algorithm[edit]

Not notable, only 472 google hits, no citable info, just a .pdf file, no evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28 02:30:30

  • Google scholar is not google 472 is an amazing number of papers on a subject, and the pdf file is of a peer-reviewed paper. yes, the wrong source was cited, but the reference is as good as they get. LinaMishima 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Scholar most definitely is Google. Uncle G 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, but you know what I mean. It's not google-the-web, it's google-sciency-stuffs. As "X Google hits" commonly refers to a websearch with google, the same format should not be used for scholar results. LinaMishima 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we don't know what you mean. Your use of "Google" was just as vague and imprecise as the use that you are criticising. Personally, I try to always write "Google Web" when I'm talking about Google Web Search, especially when contrasting it with another Google service. Uncle G 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with artificial neural networks, there's a nice space for it already. LinaMishima 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not notable enough to stand alone.-Kmaguir1 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merged, awaiting redirect I saw no reason for the content to not be on artificial neural networks, so it's been merged. Haven't done the redirect yet, as I'd consider that bad AfD form (since it's effectively deleting) LinaMishima 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please copy over my expanded citation details for original article if content merged. LotLE×talk 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, thank you for that! Unfortunately the referencing sytle the article uses makes seeing the addition hard, but it's there, in the same format as the rest (or as near as possible). LinaMishima 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This concept seems to show up on Google scholar with 472 cites. Taking a look at some of these might provide information to flesh out this article. LotLE×talk 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has enough information to exist on its own. Furthermore, the topic is interesting. Non-notability should be less of an issue as this article may not be particularly popular, given the specialized topic, however, it does provideuseful information that some users would enjoy. Wikipedia is not a paper. As such there is essentially limitless space to provide useful information. Going in depth on topics will only add to the value of Wikipedia to users. Nlsanand 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "no citable info, just a .pdf file" So since when have PDFs not been citable? Seems to warrant an article IMO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have a reasonable number of citations according to CiteSeer. [12] Cedars 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Referenced, encyclopaedic. Notability is a terrible criterion in Math, Science and the like WilyD 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comes up during any introductory course on neural networks and introduces significant changes to these. Also, the topic recently has been getting attention in the field of modelling cognitive development.blackvoid 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this stands up as an independent article. It could use some expansion, such as graphics illustrating the algorithm and more specific explanation of how it works, but that can happen with time. The expanded version I'd want would be too long for inclusion in whole in Arificial neural networks (but a "see also" between them would certainly be relevant). LotLE×talk 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at the very least Merge . I don't know how you get as few as 472 google hits. I found the entry useful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 annons. Jaranda wat's sup 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Chauhan (physician)[edit]

Clearly a vanity article. Has clear instances of self-edits and possible sock-puppet edits. Shushruth 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The four publications referenced appear to be in minor local journals, largely case studies. The BMJ claims are actually unrefereed responses to the BMJ's online bulletin board, and the other 'papers' in high-quality journals appear to be similar. Espresso Addict 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Espresso Addict's thorough research. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO based on WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page looks fine to me. Rama's car 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above vote was made bu a person impersonating User:Rama's Arrow and has been blocked for it. He/she is more than likely the sockpuppet of a banned user. Ryūlóng 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very blatantly NPOV, and appears to violate WP:AUTO. Assuming the other facts are real and significant, I would be happy with a tidy-up. However, from the heavily non-neutral tone, it is possible that the claims or the significance of the achievements are bloated. Perhaps needs to be verified by an expert. Ohconfucius 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fear it will be difficult to find a suitable subject expert who has access to the relevant journals (J Assoc Physicians India & Medical Journal Armed Forces India). Espresso Addict 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On 15 August 2006, I personally asked the page's creator to tidy it up and referred him to a number of our guidelines. However, this has been ignored for two weeks, during which the page has not been improved inline with the Manual of Style or our NPOV guidelines. Bob talk 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has a strong POV tone to it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  1. How much more does a person has to achieve to make himself worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia?
  2. The doctor's biography has been published by Marquis Who’s Who (American publishers of biographies of the best in the field) in Medicine and Healthcare.
  3. Certainly he meets the criteria for inclusion.
  4. The journals (JAPI - Journal of Association of Physicians of India, and MJAFI) which find the research of the doctor published are indexed with Index Medicus and are highly valued in India.
  5. Maybe a reconsideration is required against the verdict of deletion.
  6. Necessary minor editing may be adopted if considered necessary in order to make the article more readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.187.169 (talk) .
  • Comment: The Journal of Association of Physicians of India is Medline listed, but I can't find Medical Journal Armed Forces India there. Espresso Addict 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *MJAFI link from medind now added for reference.[reply]
  • Delete As no independent WP:RS reliable sources are used. Our standard for biographical notability is at WP:BIO, and Who's Who is intentionally not listed in that standard, as entries therein are often offered on a fee for inclusion basis. Article formatting is also definitely not in accordance with the Manual of Style, but that is not a reason for deletion. GRBerry 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or atleast wikify --T-rex 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ReverendG 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep has written original papers Doctor Bruno 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Could you please clarify how simply writing an original paper (which almost all scientists and most physicians do) is a reasonable notability standard for inclusion, i.e., as differentiated from WP:PROF point 3, a significant and well-known paper or work? --Kinu t/c 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Significant and well known are NOT OBJECTIVE criteria, but subjective criteria. Recognising Nutritional deficiencies (correctable cause) as a case of diarrhoea in HIV (at present incurable disease) is per se a notable achievement. I invite your attention to WP:PROF point 5 which suits this person adequately. Doctor Bruno 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I decided to debold your comment. And you're right, they are subjective criteria. I suppose based on my limited expertise as a healthcare researcher and a review of the articles themselves, I was not convinced per point 5... but obviously, other editors' mileage may vary. Nonetheless, thank you for providing the clarifications as to your position. --Kinu t/c 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for that bold text. That was a typo. I did not see the page after typing that comment. Well, you first said that you are not satisfied about 3. Now you say that you are not satisfied about 5 (after being pointed out) Can you be more specific as to what you expect per point 5 (as some one with expertise as health care researcher) so that it will be useful in future discussions _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the original article was a copyright violation and part of it still exists. Links to Google (and other) searches do not meet requirements of verifiability, no original research, reliable sources and biographies of living people. It also has problems with NPOV. Unless someone digs up some proper references, it needs to be deleted. I removed all the crazy bolding and the circular internal links because it was too distracting and made it too hard to read. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's full of POV and needs a lot of cleanup. If the assertions in the article about the various medical discoveries are sourced and verified then I'd think it was worth keeping. As written, it should be deleted, especially if there are still copyright violations remaining. At minimum, those need to be deleted. Brian 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete. Who = who can be bought. Publications should interesting but unless full citations are advanced we shouldn't need to verify them. Will reverse my vote if relevant papers are cited and their impact is stated; otherwise would simply fail WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Won't it be better and justified to enquire the credentials of Marquis Who’s Who.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.74.46 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Doctor Bruno Bakaman Bakatalk 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. --Ragib 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please help with the minor editing and wikify the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.65.9 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete without prejudice of recreation if his work can be shown to be verifiably important or notable. Virtually every study in Pubmed reflects some sort of "first"; I'm not convinced his "firsts" are sufficiently important or notable (per WP:PROF). (Closing admin: please watch for 219.64.XXX.XXX socks.) -AED 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep - Based on this article he has made significant contributions to the health profession. Work like this is vitally important and rarely recognized due to the technical nature of the material. His work establishes a foundation for many other sciences. I think it needs a rewrite, though, and clean up. Additional comment: I changed this to strong keep. His work with malaria alone makes him notable, in my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KarateLady (talk • contribs) KarateLadyKarateLady 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Style nauseating. Nephron  T|C 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perversefixation[edit]

A website that (according to previous edits of this page) is not yet up and running - but is already the subject of a lawsuit by SuicideGirls.com. May be notable; nominated for speedy, deleted (by me) and recreated - but on second thought I'd rather put it to the community. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:11, 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 close. AfD is not the appropriate place to propose merges; you can do that yourself without AfD's intervention. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CATastrophie[edit]

A character who appeared on three episodes of a show that lasted for one season. Suggest redirect to The Secret Files of the Spy Dogs --Nonpareility 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per nomination, although I can't actually see where the information would go if sources are provided. talk to JD wants e-mail 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-notable, vanity, things made up in school one day. A quote from the article: We Kirbies will be hyper, bouncy, and annoying at all times. We shall annoy whoever we want to forever. - Richardcavell 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Kirbish Rebellion[edit]

I don't think there's a speedy deletion criteria for this kind of ridiculousness, so I've posted it here. A "rebel movement" on an internet forum?! — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow... I think this falls under db-club, no? --Rory096 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're probably right. You can speedy it if you want. Just to note, someone just tried to change my "opinion" on this article by rewriting my AfD notice. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7, article about an organization with no notability asserted, probably because there is none. Please note that the New Kirbish Rebellion is a well-known organization throughout the world, though only to the members of Neopets. So much for WP:V. --Kinu t/c 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. A group of Trolls on a kid's site. --Daniel Olsen 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Screams vanity.--Jersey Devil 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The New Kirbish Rebellion is known throughout the world now. I think this article should be allowed, or given another chance. We've caused enough drama and hell for the Neopets/Gaia/Runescape community that a lot of people want to read about us. I don't see why this was deleted, unless it was some of our younger members who made it.

Give us another chance. -ROK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.99.26 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolowned[edit]

NN neologism. I'm also nominating Lwn, internet slang as a duplicate of this article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G3, clear to me that this is vandalism -- Samir धर्म 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Sieracki[edit]

Google the article title: it is clear that this is an obvious (and childish) hoax. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This fruit is known by a very small portion of the population of the world, most in southern africa, where people do not have the proper technologies to make web pages, so you are correct in that google would not have many articles about it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineappleprincess (talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy delete, covert promotion of CSD A7 band. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kolektovich[edit]

NN, 1 google hit, appears to be a hoax. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Hedge 2[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slumbie[edit]

NN Neologism — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This reads like an entry in a slang dictionary. Not notable. Heimstern Läufer 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would be good on urban dictionary or wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO, fails WP:V, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. --Kinu t/c 04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenn unverifiable neologism.--Jersey Devil 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the harm in making this a redirect to slumber party (well, apart from the double redirect (this is America's fault!), so let's say sleepover instead). I've done so. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article appears to be slang. Wikipedia does not need more slang, I can assure ya...--Cookie 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect. We're not a slang dictionary, and this is extremely unlikely to be a search term. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hantamaru Ririku[edit]

Yet another Naruto fan-character. Original research, fancruft. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SD criteria need to be revised to include fanfiction. Don't fictional characters have real authors who can write vanity articles? --Kunzite 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also overpowered Stu. Who the heck has both Byakugan and Sharingan? --Alexie 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied. I don't intend to comment on the dispute the nominator and author are having on our Denise Masino article, but this is an inappropriate solution. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denise masino (porn actress)[edit]

There is already an entry for this person at Denise Masino. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the deletion of unsourced material added by User:Hmoul to the Denise Masino page (see Talk:Denise Masino and User talk:Hmoul#Denise Masino for discussion of these edits). Also note that this material is still unsourced here. fbb_fan 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fork article created to avoid dispute in main page.--Jersey Devil 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engi no jutsu[edit]

Overly lengthy entry about a non-notable Naruto role-playing forum. Reads off like an FAQ for the site, something Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:WEB test of notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any sockpuppets, anyone care to explain? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it's preemptive, since this is a forum we're talking about here (it's also a Naruto fan forum, which makes things a bit worse). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koroake Kaidan[edit]

Article about non-notable comic. Appears to fail WP:FICT for notability - and Googling for "Koroake Kaidan" brings up only the Wikipedia entry. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion, being biographies of characters in this comic:

–NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unlovable Losers[edit]

This is a non-notable film with only its website as any sort of source cited as well as the only one of "about 20" results from Google for the title plus the word film that isn't either unrelated or a result of the Wikipedia article. Erechtheus 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Simon's Episcopal Church, Conyers[edit]

This is a non-notable Church location. The article asserts no special characteristic that would separate it from the vast majority of Churches. Erechtheus 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Time to mull[edit]

You may want a little while to consider this :-) ... Seriously, while it has respectable Googling numbers Time to mull, most occurrences are in the middle of sentences, not as a phrase. For me, in fact, this was the first time I heard it. A neophrase? Daniel Case 06:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zornhut ward[edit]

Nothing on Google. I'm not saying it's a hoax, just unverifiable. Daniel Case 06:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization 4 encyclopedia[edit]

Recently created article; Seems like it's headed in the direction of some sort of game guide for Civ 4, which is not acceptable per WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide (despite the article author's protestations) and not a collection of internal links. The article is juts a set of links to articles unrelated to Civilization 4. Gwernol 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Gwernol. JIP | Talk 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - A3. --Daniel Olsen 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the author's trying to dodge the "game guide" deletion accusations, but isn't very successful, because despite what the author thinks, it still looks like a game guide. ColourBurst 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per Daniel Olsen. Consists of only links elsewhere. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This will either be a game guide or a directory, both of which fail WP:NOT. --Wafulz 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Duran 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete next we'll have List of grand theft auto cheats ReverendG 05:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Renaissance Faire[edit]

Abandoned by its creator. As stands doesn't assert any real notability. I was tempted to speedy delete it as an overly short article, but thought it might be better to submit it for discussion. As it stands, delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — 40K+ google hits, quite a few news articles, running for at least 10 years, and me (living 15,000miles away) had heard of it long before I read the article. I think we have here a stub of an article about something encyclopediac Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Peripitus. (Although I've never heard of it myself) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Renaissance Faires tend to be pretty notable both as events and regional attractions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I'm from the Midwest, and this is definitely one of the highlights of the late summer. Certainly a full article here for someone with knowledge, sources and time. Carom 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the premier Renfaire for two major metropolitan areas (Chicago and Milwaukee). Zagalejo 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind and all above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was since everything has been merged, delete. --- Deville (Talk) 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipestone Area Baseball[edit]

No notability at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with the bolded "delete" there. AfD nom discussions aside, this looks to me a pretty solid merge candidate, no? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete compleetely nn random high school sports team. I'm tempted to click my sppedy delete buttion.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem to be one of the better high school baseball programs in Minnesota, so we should at least mention them on the school's page. Zagalejo 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does making state tournament appearances (and the article doesn't say how many teams make the tournament) qualify as making it a notable program? I don't think so, just by itself. One second place finish isn't enough, either. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be eight teams in the Minnesota Class AA baseball tournament [13]. Pipestone is not the best program in the state, but they've been relatively successful in recent years. So, really, I don't see why this can't be merged with the school page. Zagalejo 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, and hearing your discussion, I vote to Merge it with Pipestone Area High School.Jakeschneider220 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge per zagalejo Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I've moved everything into the school page that wasn't there already. Jakeschneider-feel free to make any changes you deem necessary. Zagalejo 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that it has been incorporated into main High School page. --Storkk 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier's corner[edit]

Non-notable blog with no assertion of notability TJ Spyke 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. Wiki is not a chat forum, and does not promote them--Anthony.bradbury 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You fools, this it was not written as a blog or chat forum. It was vandalized by other people.--Nightshiver00 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a blog. Also seems somebody here is violating WP:NPA, you might want to provide diffs for that, as I'm not seeing it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just found this while cleaning up YouTube videos. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - notability established, but this page needs some serious work. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pendelfin[edit]

Spammy, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. MER-C 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. This isn't like most corp's we see listed: it's been around for 60 years. Tons of google hits: [Check Google hits]. Probably has had a history of publications on itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly written spam. Pendle Hill surrounds Burnley - rubbish. -- RHaworth 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article by Proudlove and the book by Ashbrook satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Fixing the word "surrounds" is a matter of simple editing. Keep. Uncle G 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like notability is well established; we just need a better article. --Brianyoumans 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs a rewrite badly. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination - I am satisfied that this article meets our notifiability guidelines and is fit to stay. MER-C 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author Jayadeva Uyangoda[edit]

2 reasons for nom:

  1. Formatting is disasterous nonsense and incoherent, full of timestamps and sigs and other junk.
  2. I'm fully willing to bet this is a CV from somewhere, since no new editor would ever type up such a long list on their own. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: The only reason I'm AFDing and not opting for speedy is that Khatru2 (talk · contribs) seems to believe it has something worth keeping, per their merge nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the list (all the datestamps are due to the creator's propensity to use multiple tildes in series, which Mediawiki gleefully converts into you-know-what), but I don't see why it should be standing on its own. Merge? I don't see the point either, unless as a greatly condensed footnote. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per trialanderrors --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only that what is relevant to Jayadeva Uyangoda, delete the rest with no redirect. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful and delete the ensuing redirect. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer DeLin[edit]

Made a brief appearance in the WWE Diva Search, but that is all. Not notable. James Duggan 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Bradley Baumkirchner, Marla Duran, & Katherine Gerdes; no consensus, default keep, on Keith Michael, Daniel Franco, & Santino Rice. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marla Duran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Michael, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Gerdes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Franco, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santino Rice. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Baumkirchner[edit]

Merged nominations per request for Marla Duran, Keith Michael, Katherine Gerdes, Daniel Franco, Santino Rice. It's a slight mess due to votes and comments since the original nominations, but I've tried to tidy them up and regroup the reason for deleting each article where I can. Could an administrator close off the individual AfDs below which are now summarised here, thanx Ohconfucius

Proposed Realitycrufts deletion. The subject, and co-nominees are non-notable designer contestants on Project runway, who do not appear to have an existence outside of PR. 212 unique Ghits out of 502 for

"Bradley Baumkirchner" + designer, the overwhelming majority was blog entries.

"Marla Duran" + designer scores 662Ghits of which 251 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant Blog entries, and a few listings in directories for the Bethlehem area.

  • Comment Could you please combine these deletions? It's a pain in the ass to separate votes that are all on very similar criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keith Michael" + designer scores 44200Ghits of which 541 unique. He was the first person to be given a dishonourable discharge from the contest for cheating. Of these, the overwhelming majority of Ghits were Blog entries, and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject. His website has an Alexa rank of 2,178,220.

"Katherine Gerdes" +designer scores 774Ghits, of which 242 unique.

"Kayne Gillaspie" +designer scores 548 Ghits of which 243 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article and a fairly abundant number of Blog entries. Ohconfucius 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I take the line that reality show contestants are not inherently notable unless they are the winner and/or have some notability outside of it. Ohconfucius 08:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Daniel Franco" + designer scores 18900Ghits of which 638 unique. Alexa rank in the 4.28 millionths for danielfranco.com.

  • Delete. (Thanks, Ohconfucius, for the research.) Two years from now, who will care? --Sean Lotz 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santino Rice: Arrogant second runner-up in Project Runway.

In almost all cases, the vast majority of Ghits were for Blog entries, vox.com, sites/articles whose main subject is Project Runway. Ohconfucius 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all the contestants currently part of Project Runway 3, even if they have been eliminated. Until the show finishes airing in September it is impossible to guage the impact of their appaerance on the show on their career. Katherine Gerdes, in particular, seems to have a career as a designer independent of this show. Daniel Franco from seasons 2 and 3 obviously also has a career as a designer as does Santino Rice. The fact that he was arrogant is completely irrelevant. Crunch 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychotically strong keep for Santino Rice I'm so tired of these merged nominations when one subject is clearly more notable than the others. Santino made the top three, had a showing at Fashion Week, and is absolutely a notable designer nowadays. For the love of christ, Santino Rice gets 63,600 Google hits! Here's an MTV video story, here's an article from the Village Voice, there have been countless Defamer articles on him, and if you want tabloids, here's an article from the Philadelphia Daily News. Shall I continue? And seriously, why the hell are Runway contestants being targeted? -- Kicking222 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is not the least bit obvious what the terms "average notability" or "inherently notable" mean, yet they are used by Ohconfucius to convey some kind of pseudo-scientific aura of justification. Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. One can be a snob about all of this and think that notability should be something more than having hundreds of thousands of people wonder whether or not you are going to be eliminated on a TV reality show. But then you would just be a snob.

Jdclevenger 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim seems to be that unless you have notability outside of a Reality TV series, you are not entitiled to space in Wikipedia (space being such an increadably precious commodity within Wikipedia. Oh wait it isn't, is it?). By this logic, all Wikipedia pages devoted to fictional characters should be marked for deletion. After all, a fictional character's notability is almost by defintion a construct of the fiction in which he or she occurs. For example, Col. Jack O'Neill has a very nice article despite the fact that he is a character on Stargate / SG-1. Presumably, his notabilty is solely a function of the movie and the TV show and all the web references about him will be in the same contexts. Jack O'Neill will never write a book or run for president or do anything else notable, other than be a character of fiction. The contestants on a Reality TV show occupy an interesting niche. There notablity may be nothing more than that given by the show on which they appear. But if being a character on SG-1 is sufficent for notablity for Jack O'Neill, then it strikes me that it is sufficent for Kayne Gillaspie, Keith Michael, Bradley Baumkirchner, and all the rest. Jdclevenger 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A follow-up to my note above. One might argue that as main character on a series that has run for 10 years, Jack O'Neill has acheived some kind of notableness outside the context of the show. If so, one would still be hard pressed to justify the pages of Mr. and Mrs. Stoppable or Josh Mankey. These may not ring any bells for those not plugged into day-time Disney fare. The former are the parents of Kim Possible's sidekike Ron Stoppable and the later is Kim's love interest in several episodes. Again, my take is that the characters on Project Runway et.al. are in fact characters in a drama. The standards of notablity for inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on the standards for Television characters. Jdclevenger 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we limiting ourselves to one season of one show? There's Kwame Jackson and all the other articles in Category:Reality television participants. -Acjelen 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does seem to me that a little bit of an unfair set of criteria in use here. Reality television characters can be notable only for things other than what makes people want to write and read about them? It's a bit like saying that bands are only notable if they have done something notable besides create music. I think the criteria for including reality tv characters should be pretty straightforwardly related to their Ghits and the same criteria that applies to other bios. Ghits for blogs and reviews about a band's latest album or tour aren't discounted immediately are they? Minor reality show characters are rarely mentioned in articles or blogs about the shows and don't have as many Ghits, therefore there's an argument there for not including them. Or a new set of guidelines relating to reality tv should be hammered out. Dina 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bad analogy. It's not at all like saying that bands are only notable if they have done something notable besides create music. The nomination is based on the lack of notability outside PR, not outside their field of expertise. One is not the subset of the other. Not all PR contestants were put up for AfD.Ohconfucius 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess what I'm taking issue with here is the basic assumption that appearing on PR does not make a person notable. What these people are primarily known for is appearing on this show -- why is that rejected out of hand as sufficient notability? Some are more notable than others within that ie. Santino Rice is a more notable Project Runway contestant than Marla Duran, not because of things he did outside the show, but because he did more things on it, and was mentioned in articles and reviews with greater frequency. Why must their notability be dependent only on factors besides what they're actually famous for? And anyway, non-notability is not a grounds for deletion.WP:DP Dina 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm wondering if it's just that people are surprised, shocked, and even a bit offended, by the idea that a reality show contestant, let alone an aspiring fashion designer, can warrant a Wikipedia article, while skads of other anonymous folks are dismissed as not worthy of such an article because they are "not notable." Look, I'm equally shocked when I see lengthy articles on fictional characters from video games. But apparently these characters are notable in some circles, even though I wouldn't know them if they were sleeping in bed next to me. Maybe we should just accept that Santino Rice, Kayne Gillaspie, Katherine Gerdes et al are as notable to afficianados of reality television or fashion design as (fill in your favorite fictional video game character) are to their followers. Crunch 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard through the grapevine that Santino was offered a spot on "The Surreal Life"

Keep. This is ridiculous. These people are notable now. We can't just say "Who will care in a few years?" because someone will care. As an active member of the Olympics Wikiproject, I can tell you that we have pages created for Olympians that placed from 1st all the way to 8th place in a single event over 100 years ago. Most of these are not Olympic medalists, but they get a WP page because they were notable at the time, and in their field. One of the things that drew me to WP in the first place was that it had obscure information like this, that I wouldn't be able to find anywhere else. This is the sum of human knowledge, and that includes Reality TV, whether you or I like it or not. As for notability on Reality TV, OhConfucius says that the zoo may be notable, but Monkey A and Monkey B are not. This does not come close to applying here. Imagine if millions of people across America were interested in these two monkeys - they knew Monkey A and Monkey B by name, could tell them apart by looking at them, knew their mannerisms, and went to places like WP to learn more. Then we'd have a comparison. tiZom(2¢) 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I completely understand why, in a year or so, we might want to re-evaluate the relevence of these pages. Probably in 5 years they won't all need their own pages. At the moment, however, the show is a not insignificant part of popular culture, and I have trouble beleiving people (especially casual and rerun veiwers of the show) don't come here all the time looking for more information. None of these individual pages are inappropriately long or detailed, and besides, if we eliminated these we'd just end up trying to cram these details into the season 3 page, which is pretty massive as it is.Chunkyrice 13 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Can't add much to tiZom's comment; we should revisit when the season ends. I do wish this vote hadn't been combined; Bradley alone would get a delete from me. Bradley was non-notable throughout Season 3 and will likely remain so afterwards. Che Fox 06:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Duran[edit]

delete realitycrufts. Not very notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 662Ghits of which 251 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant Blog entries, and a few listings in directories for the Bethlehem area. Ohconfucius 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could you please combine these deletions? It's a pain in the ass to separate votes that are all on very similar criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable third-party published sources per WP:V, and insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus default keep, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Baumkirchner. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Michael[edit]

delete realitycrufts. Unnotable designer, but who was the first person to be given a dishonourable discharge from the contest for cheating. No notability beyond Project runway. "Keith Michael" + designer scores 44200Ghits of which 541 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority were Blog entries, and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject. His website is a long way below radar with an Alexa rank of 2,178,220. Ohconfucius 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject." How does that not satisfy WP:BIO? He may not be the most important person, but he seems to be important enough. --Daniel Olsen 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he is not notable for being on tv show. If it is so damn important that he was kicked, then write about it under the tv-shows entry or the reality show entry. Lundse 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TomPeters 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Baumkirchner. —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Gerdes[edit]

delete realitycrufts. Not very notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 774Ghits for "Katherine Gerdes" +designer, of which 242 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant Blog entries. Her website merely recaps her thinking during one of the episodes where she shops in Ax-man as part of Project Runway. Ohconfucius 05:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself. Lundse 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayne Gillaspie[edit]

delete realitycrufts. Designer well below average notability who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 548 Ghits of which 243 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article and a fairly abundant number of Blog entries. Ohconfucius 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I take the line that reality show contestants are not inherently notable unless they are the winner and/or have some notability outside of it. Ohconfucius 08:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not the least bit obvious what the terms "average notability" or "inherently notable" mean, yet they are used by Ohconfucius to convey some kind of pseudo-scientific aura of justification. Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. One can be a snob about all of this and think that notability should be something more than having hundreds of thousands of people wonder whether or not you are going to be eliminated on a TV reality show. But then you would just be a snob. Jdclevenger 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "average notability" applies to the Ghits. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding;
"inherently notable" means that the show is much more than the sum of its parts, and that while the show is certainly notable, the fact of having been one of the contestants does not necessarily confer notability, in much the same way that one is not notable by merely working in a successful theatre production or film, any other artistic work, or by being on the iPod development team. Ohconfucius 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself (and yes, Sean, very succintly put, who will care in a few years?). Lundse 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am open about my dislike of Reality TV, but I try not to make bad faith deletions, or ones based solely on my likes and dislikes. I will admit that PR is unlike BB, as many of these indivuals have skill/talent and could be known for what they do outside the show and not just how they behave on screen. I try hard to be objective justify and evaluate deletions based on wiki policies and guidelines, and in applying the same methodology and research I have been using to support all my other decisions and recommendations, these contestants come up as delete recommendations. Ohconfucius 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Thank you for the clarification. Jdclevenger 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. When Jdclevenger says "There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR," that is a reason to delete. People should be of general interest to receive an encyclopedia entry or they should have made a notable contribution in a certain field. Even if being on a reality TV show were a field, there would still need to be a notable contribution. Flying Jazz 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as the information is not commercial, it is relevant and important to wikipedia. Beno1983 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only are such articles necessary for wikipedia to maintain its comprehensive nature, but Kayne is also certainly famous enough to warrant an entry. He has progressed as far in the competition as Nick Verreos did, who has gone on to do much more (and has his own entry), and the entire show is more high-profile this year than it was before. dizzilylizzily
  • Keep While Ohconfucius points out that "Kayne Gillaspie" has less than 1K Google hits, the search string 'Kayne "project runway"' has about 138,000 hits. Further, there are 101 articles for that search string in Google News. I think he's notable and should be kept. xander76
  • Delete. Yes it does matter if the person will be utterly forgotten in five years. Wikipedia is not a collection of ephemera. No it doesn't matter that much if the person happens to be the particular body that crosses the screens of millions of reality TV watchers. Notability is mostly about achievement, achievement recognized by one's peers or in some other meaningful way. I call on the closing admin to take note of the weakness of the Keep arguments. Herostratus 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beating out other contestants to win a spot on a show such as this one is an achievement, no matter how frivolous it may seem to us. Chancemichaels 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]
  • Comment 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.' This is a common sentiment of the Deletionists, suggesting that the possibility of future notabililty is not enough for current inclusion. I would suggest that it works both ways. Arguing that a current article be deleted because the person will be 'utterly forgotten in five years' is a crystal ball prediction. It may be true. It may not. Come back in five years and argue that no one cares about this. Jdclevenger 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Franco[edit]

delete. Not notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge of Project Runway. No notability beyond Project runway. Alexa rank in the 4.28 millionths for danielfranco.com. "Daniel Franco" + designer scores 18900Ghits of which 638 unique. Of these, the vast majority are for vox.com and blogspot.com. There are 20 incoming links to his site danielfranco.com, including 1 from Project Runway, 3 from search engines, 11 from bunnyshop.com, and the remainder from blogs. Ohconfucius 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Thanks, Ohconfucius, for the research.) Two years from now, who will care? --Sean Lotz 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself (and yes, Sean, very succintly put, who will care in a few years?). Lundse 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reality contestant finalists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Asking who will care about Y in X number of years is a straw man argument. How important will Angelina Jolie be 1,000 years from now, anyone care to take a guess? The point is we are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia here, and finalists of major shows should be noted. RFerreira 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santino Rice[edit]

delete. Realitycrufts. Arrogant also-ran in Project Runway. No notability beyond Project runway. Ohconfucius 08:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In spite of not winning, Santino was certainly the most famous character on that season. (yeah, I'm a dorky Project Runway fan, so feel free to take that into account.) Probably more notable than Chloe Dao, the winner. He is arrogant though. Dina 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I watch it too. You may have a point. He could be like the villain in the piece which makes the hero. Ohconfucius 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Bromley[edit]

Not notable per WP:MUSIC Kerowyn Leave a note 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the idea that he fails WP:MUSIC? Go ask Google for some information about George (band). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of band that has charted down under. Catchpole 11:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, encyclopaedic, et cetera. WilyD 13:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. This is clearly not something that requires AfD's time, but can be easily solved with the help of our good friend Mr Redirect. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altar_Screen[edit]

Articles "Altar screen" and "Altar Screen" both exist. I am proposing the deletion of "Altar Screen" (both words capitalized).--Sean Lotz 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Deville (Talk) 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker World cup 2006[edit]

Previously AfD'd here. I tried it as a CSD for lack of context and pretty much everything else, but was told to bring it here. Technically, had I known it had previously been deleted it would be a CSD, but I snoozed and lost, so I'll put it here to make sure nobody calls me names. BigHaz 09:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a further note about the initial AfD, there was a threat made to recreate the article if it were deleted. A suggestion was made to protect it, and I think this recreation is proof that someone should break out the WP:SALT shaker. BigHaz 09:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It definitely doesn't fall under an exact re-creation of an article deleted through the AfD process, because it's never been deleted in such a way (it was speedied last time). The article makes absolutely no sense to me (and Google makes things more confusing), and if I'd been first on the scene I definitely would have speedy deleted it as having so little context as to be nonsense. However, I trust Redvers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who seems to have more information than I. In any case, threats to re-create the article shouldn't worry us in the slightest — we are well enough equipped to deal with such things. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, so a speedy delete done via AfD is still a speedy delete rather than anything else. I think I'd heard that somewhere along the line, but it's useful to be reminded of this sort of thing. BigHaz 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No speedy deletion criterion applies to this article. I've attempted to verify that this even exists at all, and come up empty. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 12:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular Delete and Protect (if it doesn't fall on speedy deletion criteria).--Húsönd 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect per WP:SNOW as vandalism in the form of nonsense. This article purports to describe a soccer tournament which took place this year involving the national football teams of various countries (as opposed to a group of amateur sides which just used the names of the countries they were from). As such, it would receive thousands upon thousands of Google hits if it actually existed. In fact, it gets 22 or so Google hits, all from Wikipedia itself [14]. I may reconsider if someone can get me a videotape of Vatican City's 4-1 victory over Denmark as listed in this article ... I doubt it. --Metropolitan90 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I admit that this article isn't patent nonsense which would be a speedy deletion criterion. The article is reasonably coherent; the problem is that none of the sporting results described therein actually took place in the real world. --Metropolitan90 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Vatican City have a football team at all? I can hardly believe that we're having this article nominated for the second time in 24 hours, there's gotta be or there should be some criterion to speedy delete it. --Húsönd 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, the Vatican City does have a national team. Its chances of beating Denmark 4-1, however, are slightly lower than mine of being elected President of the USA. BigHaz 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just noticed. Portugal lost all matches while England was flawless. Someone is a bad, bad loser.--Húsönd 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per creator's threat (and now execution) to repost. It's a hoax, self-contradictory and obvious. We probably could have re-opened the original AFD rather than started a new one, but whatever... -- nae'blis 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Mania[edit]

Same reason per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Dinosaur Digs: advertisement-like format, and the fact it can be covered in Zoo Tycoon. I suggest a merge. Bibliomaniac15 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - copyvio with the text copied from a press release -- Whpq 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although it needs extensive editing, I believe both Dinosaur Digs and Marine Mania need seperate pages from the Zoo Tycoon page. I don't mind personally editing this page so it doesn't violate any copyrights, but would like to get everyone's OK before I do anything.--Dflocks80 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Fifteen[edit]

This is a various-artists compilation created to go along with a magazine which doesn't appear overly notable in its own article (Google throws up a number of "Volume Magazines", none of which seem to be the right one). Even if the mag itself is notable, I'm not convinced that any given compilation of artists featured within its pages is notable. BigHaz 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this afd are the rest of Volume magazine compilations. - Bobet 10:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, since I can't find evidence of notability for any of the individual compilations. Having these articles would be akin to having an article for each issue of a magazine (since a compilation was supposedly included with every magazine), which isn't useful. - Bobet 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most. I'll agree that most of the articles are probably not notable enough (I created almost all of 'em, and some were very difficult to find info), but the Trance Europe Express series is reasonably well represented in a Google search (~15k hits), and were fairly important compilations of important artists. Keep those, keep the main Volume magazine article, tank the rest. — Wwagner 18:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Merge and redirect to Volume magazine, based on the Garrie's comments below, and a test page that I made. See User:Wwagner/sandbox. — Wwagner 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - all of these albums (except the "best of"'s, of course) were comprised of otherwise unavailable material by the artists in question, many of whom are highly notable and remain so. It would be silly to have some and not others based on a percentage of how many artists per disc pass WP:MUSIC. It would be sillier to move the tracklistings to the main article as it would be huge. I think the common sense approach is to keep them all. Ac@osr 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't quite follow that. The notability of the artists is anything but in question, but does that make everything which they release (or, in this case, don't release except in this format) notable? BigHaz 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - just as an aside, the article NME compilations survived a deletion vote earlier this year despite the fact the discs in question were nothing more than promotional samplers containing previously issued material. It may be that an article of this type would be appropriate here although, as I said, it would be huge. Ac@osr 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is a method to "roll up" sections which is being used on some railway and bus information articles. This would significantly reduce the size of this page because only the CD the reader is looking at would be expanded. Sorry but I don't know the article specifically I think it is a list of London bus routes? Garrie 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom. TJ Spyke 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge FWIW, I just found myself needing an article on Volume Sixteen and hey, there it was. To justify keep... well, compare with Category:Compilation album series and make up your mind. To justify merge... we have "huge" articles on compilation album series like Café del Mar and Mystera. –Unint 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge These were significant influential albums - but merge into individual entries for series - ie just one for Volume, trance atlantic, trance europe etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.255.248 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep all Very notable series in the UK. Also, the nominator has been misguided a little - these were full length CDs of new material sold in the shops at full price, but which came with a CD-sized book. They weren't freebies like NME, and the "magazine" was never available seperately from the CD. --kingboyk 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In that case, aren't we then dealing either with individual issues of a magazine (which includes a CD) or individual entries in a compilation series of albums (which include a magazine)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, if the series is notable in the UK, Google seems strangely silent on the matter. There've been a lot of things about music released over the years called "Volume", but the only thing I could find specifically on this was a discussion board post asking if people remembered it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google doesn't know everything friend. These were early 90s compilations and predate Google. I think you have enough comments from British music fan editors saying "important compilation series" to have your answer :) --kingboyk 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC) PS for the record, imho Volume 2 and Trance Europe Express were the best :)[reply]
        • Fair cop regarding the limits of Google, and thanks for clearing up exactly what they were in the first place. The question is, though, whether or not every single one of these compilation albums is notable in and of itself. I'm willing to agree that the entire thing (Volume Magazine) is notable, but why does each album necessarily need its own individual article? Surely the approach to take would be to give each compilation a paragraph or equivalent on the Volume Mag article itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly, because the articles are in a bad state at the moment. That's not an AFD issue though; the articles have a "right" to exist as does any other member of a notable compilation series. If you'd like to be bold and clean them up or do some merging it doesn't need to be an AFD matter. (Because, somebody else might want to undo it, particularly if more material becomes available - such as reviews. If an article is deleted, the history goes too and this kind of bold-revert-discuss pattern can't happen).
          • FWIW, given the volume (pun intended) of albums in this series I think leave em alone. Whatever, I don't think they're deletable. Over and out :) --kingboyk 10:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all these please per kingboyk they were influential albums and should be included Yuckfoo 09:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • further comment - I do think the waters have been clouded here by a misunderstanding as to exactly what Volume was. It was both a magazine and a compilation album. The discs weren't cover freebies of the type you get now (although, in British publishing, it has a clear influence on magazines like Word which always carry cover CDs), rather each was comprised of new, previously unissued material. Each edition sold at CD price. That said, each issue carried contemporaneous album etc reviews so they were certainly a periodical. PS - Volume 4 was the best :) Ac@osr 13:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Tyler[edit]

Graphic artist and filmmaker. Two short paras in the listings section of Willamette Week, no credible evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete appears to have made a film about the electric can opener and that doesn't appear to be especially notable. Perhaps the Magic Hostess article might also merit deletion. MLA 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. The two news articles provided are a local newspaper, which doesn't qualify as major coverage in my books. And speaking of major coverage, he also fails WP:PORN since he's apparently an adult film actor as well. --Wafulz 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 16:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artesian Tea[edit]

delete per WP:NN or WP:NFT. The concept is not notable. 38Ghits of which 12 are unique. Except for wiki, none of the others are for the product/concept. The article is written by the concept's inventor, Rocky Williform, whose page is also proposed for deletion per WP:VAIN. NN individual 11unique Ghits, including 1 wiki. Ohconfucius 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How ? Nothing Verifyable from a reliable source here to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Guy Technologies[edit]

This page was deleted once before and is now back with only (very) minor edits. Looks like an ad for self promotion. Nominated for deletion. Rorndoff 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Being a webmaster isn't inherently notable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Czerwinski[edit]

Non-notable article for a webmaster. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I'm afraid he doesn't cut it for a Wikipedia article. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 10:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazenga LuaLua[edit]

Youth footballer who has not played for any first team. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Capelloni.

  • Delete until such time as he has played for a first team at the professional level. Robotforaday 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he is at least given a first team squad number. Qwghlm 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to recreation if he makes the first team. Oldelpaso 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until (if) he plays for first team. Merge what there is with Lomana LuaLua -- Alias Flood 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the players featured on here (all of whom have never played for a first team) can have an article I don't see why Kazenga LuaLua can't. Bababoum 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he plays for first team. I also support the deletion of Man United Academy players -- User:KRBN 09:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 16:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candy_Manson[edit]

Seems to fail the WP:PORN BIO she has been in 24 movies according to Adult Film Database.com or 23 iafd.com Anadin 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín[edit]

Non-notable academic Sam Clark 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:PROF Pathlessdesert 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in light of info below; article should reflect the ways in which the subject meets notability criteria as opp. to her academic background (in which the subject appears to be a standard nn academic). Pathlessdesert 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm far from convinced she is non-notable (given her field). Her work biography is impressive enough for me. I'd be interested to see what anyone who actually knows something about her field (or even how to pronounce her name) would have to say on the subject; at present we're all far too ignorant to really say much about this article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article asserts no notabiltiy, WP:BIO, unverifiable. So what if she had written a few books, are they notable in the first place? --Terence Ong (T | C) 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With due respect, I'm not so sure you know either. The nom is an academic in the arts and I'm giving him some credit. And double check the names of the publishers in your link, you'll see that a chunk of the books were self-published -- Samir धर्म 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no, I don't know. If I knew, I'd have said "I know" rather than "none of us know" ... and am I the only one whose skin crawls when someone says "with [all] due respect" to me? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do agree that it would be great if we had someone knowledgeable of her field here, but commenting on info at our disposal, I think it's still a delete. The significance of the books is unclear to me as a chunk were published by Cois Life which she is the co-founder of (according to Mark's link). And 2 peer reviewed publications in 2 years does not notability make. If she was the sole author/major contributor of the English/Irish dictionary listed, then I may be swayed, but right now, I agree that she's non-notable as an academic. -- Samir धर्म 11:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the basis of her work biog, linked above, she's an ordinary senior academic: she's written some books and articles, she teaches various courses at her institution. This doesn't add up to notability. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Currently, she reads like a run-of-the-mill academic, albeit one in an unusual field. I'll happily reconsider if someone closer to the Irish language provides more information. BigHaz 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since information has now been provided about the body she's a member of. I wouldn't mind seeing more info, but the notability issue seems to be resolved (at least to me it is). BigHaz 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cois Life is a real publishing company that publishes many different authors and books. See http://www.coislife.ie/index2.htm Her status as a co-founder of the publishing company does not detract from the notability of her publications. Moreover, she served on the Coimisiún na Gaeltachta for two years. The Irish Government established Coimisiún na Gaeltachta (The Gaeltacht Commission) in April 2000 to make recommendations on the strenghtening of Irish as the normal means of communication of the Gaeltacht community. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Having published books is not in itself sufficient for notability. So, is the thought that although CNP isn't notable qua academic, she is notable qua member of Coimisiún na Gaeltachta? If so, perhaps that article should list the members of the commission, and perhaps this article (if it's kept) should make it clear that this is her claim to notability. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me she cleary meets WP:PROF (regarded by others as a significant expert in her field). Coimisiún na Gaeltachta was an 8 member Government appointed national body recommending on the state of a national language. And FWIW I could pronounce her name although my expertise wouldn't go much beyond that. Dlyons493 Talk 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's the director of Fiontar and co-founded one of what must undoubtedly be one of the few publishers for the Irish language. Her book, Focloir Fiontar/Dictionary of Terminology lists for sale on major Irish Language booksellers. You only need to meet one of seven criteria for WP:PROF and she meets several. Irongargoyle 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her role as an Irish language consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary for the past 20 years (see this page) meets WP:PROF no. 1 IMHO. Here is some more information on the publishing company she founded. Since it is funded by the the Arts Council of Ireland, a government sponsored body, I presume that the company is important for the promotion of the Irish language. Bláthnaid 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— This discussion sequence shows the value of the Wiki process. The clear progression from questions to data makes me want to edit for another day. Good enough for Wikipedia. Williamborg (Bill) 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly is. This discussion has convinced me of a keep -- Samir धर्म 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - dunno if I ought to vote keep as nominator, but OK, I'm convinced that I was mistaken. Now someone needs to make the subject's notability explicit in the article. This process has been a cheering indication of how well Wiki can work... Cheers, Sam Clark 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torrindale[edit]

Hoax article, band does not exist, not on allmusic.com, google only points to wikipedia and mirrors. Catchpole 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax. Well spotted. Punkmorten 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Destroy all hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not on everyhit.com, so claims of UK hits are false. -- Beardo 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all as CSD G1. "Nick Long saw action as a foot soldier in the Roman legion during the First Roman-Jewish War. It is believed that during this time he was set upon by Catholics opposed to the Army" - that would be implausible, because there weren't any Catholics back then. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Long (Cult)[edit]

Also mominated:

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Out[edit]

Webcruft, Alexa ranking 487,984. Punkmorten 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, unless I am missing something, it does not even assert notability. A clear promotional effort for a nonnotable website. Uucp 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does read as a promo but they are a serious organisation for youth mental health. I've heard them repeatedly covered on non-commercial TripleJ radio, and heard them discussed favourably (radio again) by the South Australian minister of health. At the worst tag it for importance + references and look back in a month or so. Defininately not a speedy candidate - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, rather, revert back to the article I wrote about the Four Tops LP of this name (that, or actually make a proper move to the Reach Out (album) namespace. Whoever created this article didn't even bother to cleanup the links to the article). Wikipedia is not a web directory, not even for a non-profit website. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Australian mental health organisation, needs rewriting though. --Canley 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the title should be moved to Reach Out! with an exclamation mark, that's the official name. --Canley 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable enough for me. In the same ilk as organisations such as Beyondblue. - Longhair 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Canley, Longhair. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Inspire Foundation, which runs the website and a couple of other projects, might be worthy of an article, but the website in of itself is not sufficiently notable. Zaxem 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Major support organisation in Australia. It is not a website [it HAS one, but is not focused around the website] so Alexa ranking is irrelevant. -- Chuq 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hale, writer, producer[edit]

Vanity; non-notable. He "won a special award".. what for, exactly? Page was created by subject himelf. EuroSong talk 12:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umezawa's Jitte[edit]

Individual Magic cards, even popular ones, are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering) and other precedents. Andrew Levine 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a vote, as nominator you've already made your argument, posting delete per nom is very bad form. WilyD 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By default, listing an article for deletion is not necessarily supporting its deletion; the purpose is to have a discussion, and if the nominator wants to include himself in the discussion, he can note his support for deletion. If the nominator wants to abstain, he can leave out the "delete" (as I have done before in AfDs where I wanted to start discussion on topics for which I had not been so sure that deletion was appropriate). Andrew Levine 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Actually, I thought the accepted convention was to treat the default as a delete - because the nominator usually provides an argument for deletion. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've seen people write something like I'm in favour of deleting this article at the end of their nomination, to make the issue clear. But what the nominator's done here reads (on a quick parse) like "voting twice" - and I've definitely seen people being told off for similar behaviour in the past. WilyD 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As you correctly pointed out, AfD is not a vote, so I don't see how it's even possible for someone to "vote twice." Andrew Levine 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Betrayers of Kamigawa - merge if anyone's up to it, but it's already somewhat covered there WilyD 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not redirect, Betrayers of Kamigawa already has the card featured. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The card is extremely prominate in the set, a reasonable search term and the term is (very) unlikely to be used to create an unrelated article - I can't think of any other rational for not making it a redirect - what am I missing? WilyD 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, jizzm resulted in a concensus for a redirect to Arab Nights. WilyD 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons I laid out in the Chaos Orb AfD... though at least this article is sourced.--Isotope23 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unlimited (Magic: The Gathering), with possibility of merging. JPD (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos orb[edit]

Individual Magic cards, even important/popular ones, are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn and other precedents. Andrew Levine 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Beta (Magic: the Gathering), it's already mentioned there, perhaps merging if someone desires. WilyD 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Unlimited. Comment. I don't think the machinery of AfD was even necessary here; I'd already dropped a "Merge to" with a single card AfD cited, and was going to simply redirect it (possibly pulling some material along with?) very soon anyway. If any future single-card articles are seen (barring single-cards so famous/breaking that they are notable), they can probably also be quietly redirected without need to trouble AfD. SnowFire 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tap 4BU and Delete, while I can go with a redirect on a deck build that was used reasonably frequently in tournament play, I don't see any reason for a redirect on an individual card. The article is also completely unsourced and not verified, which is enough to push it into deletion territory in my book.--Isotope23 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think that is a great idea to just redirect these cards as they are obviously something ppl will search for. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I disagree with the nom, and note the lack of binding decisions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Unlimited, merging content if appropriate. It's a historically iimportant Magic card, but interesting mostly in context of overall history of the game. Unlimited achieves that. Maestlin 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aggro deck. —Mets501 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Weenie[edit]

Individual Magic decktypes not notable for inclusion, even successful ones. See precedents:

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop posting delete per nom in your own nominations, it's extraordinarily bad form. WilyD 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, at one time this was a somewhat common practice; I'm not not aware of any guideline or policy that it is against...--Isotope23 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is true. I've been reflexively posting that for a long time, since back when the process was still "Votes for Deletion." Whether it's against current policy or not, though, if I stop now it will save me time. Andrew Levine 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aggro deck it's already covered there, merge if desired. WilyD 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per WilyD.--Isotope23 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WilyD. It's a notable deck, but it doesn't need its own article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this?

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hesher[edit]

Delete at best this is a dictionary definition for a slang term. The entire article is original research and unsourced speculation. This survived an AFD in early 2005 as no consensus with suggestions that it be cleaned up. No meaningful progress has been made towards verifiability in 18 months Gwernol 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Cobbers[edit]

Non-notable gym in New Zealand. Less than 700 Ghits, fails WP:CORP. fuzzy510 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvicom[edit]

Long, rambling essay about the IT industry. Subjective and unsourced. Originally promoting the company Alvicom, now apparently just badly titled. FreplySpang 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is Spam.--Anthony.bradbury 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as prodder. MER-C 13:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just got tagged as a copyvio, therefore speedy close or speedy delete (CSD A8). MER-C 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Matthews PR[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable company. MER-C 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Liz Matthews (before this page was created) was linked to from a number of her clients pages. This page intends to bring together these clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwaddington (talk • contribs)
Is this a comment or an argument for keeping the article? MER-C 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tom, most of the links were introduced by you, based on the edit histories of the pages that link to this article. --Kinu t/c 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Wikipedia is not a free directory or a CV hosting service. Piccadilly 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article fails WP:V - is there a better criterion for deletion? I think not. WilyD 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. --John Nagle 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Shaw[edit]

non-notable; article marked as autobiographical; references do not list subject; non-notable linked references - CobaltBlueTony 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect ZsinjTalk 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Property maintenance[edit]

Borderline article that I think can be improved nicely, given time. Was tagged for speedy, detagged, prodded, deprodded, reprodded. Prodding editor thinks there is not enough information for this to have its own article. The creator is making an effort to improve the thing, if we don't run him off. (My brother has worked as a property manager, so I know a tiny bit about it and believe there is enough info for an article.)

or merge to Property management. :) Dlohcierekim 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Dlohcierekim. Likely search term. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Keep and clean it up with a firehose. Property maintenance is an old and established profession. This article is about as weak a description of the field as one could hope to find. Williamborg (Bill) 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought I agree with Dlohcierekim; I'd far more likley look for Property management.
  • Why don't you expand this article instead of merging it (as has been suggested) or worse deleting it. Property Maintenance exists in the real world and I don't see why it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.202.3 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bonomo[edit]

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure as improper (among other things, the closer had commented in the debate.) This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please note that I will be making no further edits to this or any other page on Wikipedia under this or any other account, as this nonsense has shown me that the amount of proportion of arguing one has to do to the actually useful edits one makes is way too high, and I don't have the time or the time or tolerance for frustration for something so ultimately frivolous. This article has enough sources, and it's your choice whether to vote to delete or to go out there and cite it properly. Enjoy your wikipedia. Grindingteeth 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, As it stands, should have been speedied as an attack article.  :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What attacks are there in the article, and why haven't you removed them? Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V - the ultimate criterion. WilyD 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? Many reliable sources were discussed in the AFD and the deletion review. It's verifiable. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • False, exactly none were brought up in the AFD. One Business Week artilce was brought up that only happened to randomly mention him. No matter how many sockpuppets you make, you can't pretend what didn't happen did. 2005 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, all I can suggest you do is review the first AfD and the deletion review. Many reliable sources were brought up. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now seems to pass WP:V and even WP:BIO - I suppose a keep is in order.WilyD 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Authors and defenders had plenty of time to address the concerns during this long discussion. `'mikka (t) 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who wanted to delete the article had just as much time to find reliable sources. Unlike them, people who wanted to keep the article have provided in the AfD, deletion review, and now the article itself several reliable sources. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A single notable event from his bio deserves nothing more than a sentence in section Online poker# Integrity and fairness: cheated, got caught, apologized (he may shove his apology you know where), lucky not got shot, so what? `'mikka (t) 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article changes, I stand behind my former vote. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cheating is not sufficient reason for notability. Mukadderat 18:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we have a major, well-known player, who has been very successful at various forms of poker, being caught and publically outted for cheating. It's notable enough. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non "major", not "very successful". not first caught. `'mikka (t) 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete will reconsider if sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V trumps all. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it trumps all, then you can surely explain what's wrong with the many sources brought up in the AfD, deletion review, and now the article itself. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. Should never have been reopened. 2005 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I attempted to reliably source this. If I failed, please help by pointing out how. You might find benefit in the many sources discussed in the AfD and deletion review. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing a triviality surely isn't the point. The subject is not notable as a poker player (and just to anticpate the obvious, his online accomplishements were due to cheating, which makes them non-poker accomplishments). He has one casino final table in a tournament, and isn't even old enough to play ring games in a major US casino poker room. The cheating incident is mildly interesting, but *he* is not, and merits no article. Two sentences about the incident in the poker cheating article are the appropriate place to mention the incident. 2005 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please refrain from removing my citations from the article while at the same time claiming I'm not providing any. Justin has done significantly better in poker than what you suggest, both in tournaments and in cash games. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The added source from bluff magazine fails to establish notability in my mind because the article is not primarily about the subject (Justin) but instead about the practice for which he was guilty. The second is an apology by him, thus also fails to establish notability. Unless there is a published article more directly about him, I think he is not sufficiently notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am adding more sources for notability. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, added reliable, independant source all about Justin's poker career, including his cheating. Grindingteeth 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless better sources are used and a more complete article is revealed. ––FeldBum 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable in terms of poker accomplishments. SubSeven 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think WP:V has clearly been met and then some. The issue here is notability, and that's it. Seems to me that there are a fairly large number of poker players at about his level of success, but the cheating scandal thing has a lot of coverage. Plus, Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuicetalk 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of the article isn't notable. Rray 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is much longer way to establish notability and verifiability than just quote several online sources. To make references valid, the sources themselves must be proved to be notable. It is not my business to check whether the quoted website is not run by Bonomo's or Grindingteeth's boyfrend in his garage. `'mikka (t) 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give me a break, Mikka. There's no such thing as a notable sources policy. And if you want to argue that sources are run by Bonomo or Gridinginteeth in some kind of bizarre conspiracy to delude Wikipedia into including an article, then it definitely IS your business to look into it; you're being dismissive of the hard work that another editor put in to trying to meet your own demands. Don't bite the newbies, but even if Grindingteeth wasn't new, you need to be more WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. But anyway, Here: Source 1 is from Bluff Magazine, which is a print magazine with a website. The magazine is a real magazine, with a decent Amazon sales rank. Source 2 is from CompatiblePoker.com, a website with a 200K Alexa rank; not bad, considering that it's a niche site that caters to Mac and Linux poker players trying to play online, yet doesn't offer games itself. They have bios of only 13 online pros, and the link is the one for Justin. Source 3 is a repost of Justin's apology from his website; it is hosted on a site about honesty in online tournaments. A quick websearch reveals other sources from msn.foxsports.com (yeah, I know it's Fox but *I* think it's still reliable), BusinessWeek online (before the cheating incident), another Bluff Magazine article; passing mention, but lists Justin as one of 6 "players to watch", and another Bluff Magazine; this time a profile of him. It's one thing to ask those supporting an article like this to do some work: it's another thing entirely to judge that work without even taking the time to look at it. Mangojuicetalk 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't pretend that the original editor acted in good faith, as that is very offensive to editors who do and have. Frankly I don't know what you think the above proves, or even why you mention it. There is no dispute a cheating incident involving this person took place, and is mentioned in places around the web. The point is whether this person merits an article, and given after all this time there are only two sentences that are far more appropriate to either the online poker article or the cheating at poker articles, that pretty obviously answers the question. The person is a footnote of a footnote. 2005 06:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read what I was responding to (Mikka's comment), and you'll see the point. And I don't know who you mean by the "original editor," because the article was edited by some dozen users before you nominated it for deletion. However, I certainly do assume good faith of the editors who try to improve the article in response to community demands. We're supposed to. Mangojuicetalk 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So now you insult the original editor by saying he wasn't acting in good faith by creating this article? Vivelequebeclibre 21:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looking at it again, I have no idea why I said "original editor" since that wasn't what i meant. I was refering to the accounts used by the person posting here as Gridinginteeth. 2005 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with and to Online poker#Integrity and fairness. Subject is not notable enough to merit his own article, but the incident in which he is involved is quite notable within the context of online poker. Rohirok 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure why this is being nominated a second time. The deletion review already demonstrated that the article was notable, even though it is short. This is just going to discourage the original creator from making more fine edits. Vivelequebeclibre 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DRV overturned the first AfD on procedural grounds, not on notability grounds. ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why did people who wanted the article kept closed in the DRV talking about the article's content (namely, its notability)? Vivelequebeclibre 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangojuice, meets my interpretation of the WP:BIO inclusionary guidelines. RFerreira 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per mangojuice this poker player is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo
  • Merge/Delete per 2005 and others. This person is only notable according to the article for Cheating in poker, and it can be included within that article, rather than requiring an article of its own. Essexmutant 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to me he is more known as "ZeeJustin" so I added that to the article. The story of him cheating is well known in the poker community and is often used as an example when describing cheating online. Definitly notable to most poker players. bbx 07:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and I question the assertion Definitely notable to most poker players since, if that were true, verifiability & sources would be out there in, so to speak, spades. Which it isn't. Eusebeus 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So when did Wikipedia fall into the hands of these strict, authoritative, big-brother types who say "No no no!" to every minor article and edit, using the one-size-fits-all excuse of "Notability"? (No personal attacks notwithstanding, I point a big fat finger at User:2005 as the embodiment of this negative attitude). I, for one, envision Wikipedia to be a source of ALL knowledge, big or small. In fact, I am the creator of the Unity Young article, who is much less notable than Justin Bonomo, but who became (humorously) famous after ONE single bout on ESPN2. Does the Unity Young article serve the community of curious people who stop by Wikipedia to see if there's some info about her? YES! And I will fight anyone who wants to delete THAT article. Just like I will fight anyone who tries to delete this one here. Thus, I join with my fellow Wikipedians who wish to keep the Justin Bonomo article. We are not strict disciplinarians. We want free, open knowledge. Immense, vast, all-encompassing, searchable knowledge. I used to be a random user who searched Wikipedia for ANY and ALL knowledge. As long as there are curious people who come to Wikipedia to search for "Justin Bonomo", to see what Wikipedia has to say about his cheating, then that is notable enough for me (and most others). This article shall remain. Cloudreaver 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two points are so important, let me re-emphasize: SEARCHABILITY and CONTENT. If enough people SEARCH for it, Wikipedia should have it. And focus on increasing CONTENT, the more content the better. The more entries the better. 1,000,000,000,000 entries on Wikipedia, I say. Let the knowledge and information flow.Cloudreaver 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impressive manifesto, but you don't make the rules. Here are Wikipedia Policies, a good place to start reading. SubSeven 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. :) But s/he is making a point that is well-established in policy: Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took up this cause and advanced this philosophy only after I myself was a victim of deletion. And it wasn't fun. It sucks. Suppression of information is a reprehensible action. So thanks to Mangojuice for showing me this page: Wikipedia is not paper. I will BE BOLD in adding content. And if all else fails, I will ignore all rules. - Cloudreaver 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Bacor[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO unless I mised something in his 16 Google hits. Cheers. I did not see anything verifiable. :) Dlohcierekim 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Beta Potata[edit]

This article was speedy deleted under CSD G4 as a repost from this AfD. A DRV consensus determined this speedy was in error; the article here is substantially rewritten and sourced. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Geoffrey Spear 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively merge with punk house. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a potentially notable example of a punk house which is a subject, which, at this point, has no established criteria for notability. When a criteria is established for notability, then we can determine if this is a notable or non-notable article. However, in the meantime, lets KEEP the article and use it as a motivation to improve the punk house article, come to an agreement on the criteria for punk house notability, and overall build more interest and discussion concerning all punk rock related articles. The main venue for these discussions could be WikiProject Punk music, which though a really good beginning, needs much more attention until it is on par with related WikiProjects such as WikiProject hip hop. Thanx. Xsxex 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "potentially notable" is not a valid keep criterion. Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentZoe, and others, by what criteria are you basing notability on? is there any chance that a punk house might require a different criteria for notability or have "we" at wikipedia already established criteria for all articles regardless of topic? Xsxex 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikitravel and Delete. While I found no established consensus or precedent specifically concerning articles about pseudo-fraternal, counter-culture music venue/flophouses (I looked in WP:CORP WP:Music and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_shops), this does not preclude us from coming to consensus and setting new precedent here. I believe the subject of the article is not notable enough because it is just a local music venue. Maybe some acts that eventually made it big came through the venue, but the same can be said of many other venues, like Okayz Corral in Madison, Wisconsin, which hosted such bands as Nirvana and Barenaked Ladies. Are we going to have articles about all of these local venues just because some eventually famous bands once played there? True, some local venues like CBGB have become legendary on a national scale, but I see no evidence of this for TBP. The first source in the article, a local publication, even refers to TBP as just a place for "mid-grade" acts. If even the local media regard the venue as being of "mid-grade" importance, why should Wikipedia regard it as important enough to merit its own article? I think it ought to be moved to Wikitravel per precedent regarding touristic information Rohirok 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -- ChrisB 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikitravel and Delete per Rohirok. First, I'm somewhat amused by the armflapping triggered by the absence of notability standards. Notability, regardless of what class the subject falls into, is established by evidence that the subject has been noted. Despite the number of links in the article I'm not convinced that this place has. The Daily Iowan and Iowa State Daily links are passing mentions, others are just simply listings, and Newsbank does not provide anything either (two passing mentions). So absent a portrait of the place in a reliable source it should receive at best a passing mention in the punk house article, which itself needs some serious sourcing. I like the idea about inclusion into Wikitravel though, as long as it meets their guidelines. ~ trialsanderrors 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. We can't transwiki to Wikitravel. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Hey, I'm curretly trying to contact users from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music to get more opinions. Please keep the debate open for a few more days. Also I am interested in this Wikitravel idea. What does it entail? Do they have a listing for Iowa City already? Also since the venue is longer functioning, what would be the purpose of the article? Xsxex 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the debate closes around Sept 2 or 3. There a listing for Iowa City, yes, but I missed the fact that the house doesn't exist anymore. I guess Wikitravel doesn't make much sense then. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. DavidJJJ 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply nn. Eusebeus 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. Most of the sources given are not reliable, and of those that could be considered reliable the coverage is trivial. Oldelpaso 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at very least Merge with punk house. I have no ideas what notability would say about this, but notability isn't even Wikipedia policy. The fact that many of the bands who played there are notable enough to have their own pages points to the institute itself being notable. The fact that it has survived in multiple incarnations is also interesting. JonnyChance 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dwnsjane2 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is an extension of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and is frequently used to decide AFD's. It's already merged into punk house anyway, so no need to ask for that. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dwnsjane2 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Xsxex's notes. There's no established notability for punk houses. If various rail stations around Scotland deserve articles, then so do various Punk houses, which perform much the same function (albeit, for travelling punk kids). Canæn 02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with punk house. Both articles are pretty sparse at present. If a load of new data on TBP becomes available it can always be separated out again. BTLizard 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Let's support the music. If anyone supports Punk Music, then I will too! We'll keep this posted LILVOKA 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - According to the article the building had notable guests. Now if this guests are indeed notable (Im clueless about punk) then I would be very much be leaning towards keep. Im suggesting this should be investigated. I do not believe that we should have a article on every building where something happens but this seems notable to me due to the fact that it appears the building was host to notable people. Also I would like to say if very little information is available about the building itself (which I would bet is true) then maybe this would be better off in a list since many lists host information when there is little available to make a fair length article on each list item. - Tutmosis 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Erotic Internet Models[edit]

Non helpful list, consists almost entirely of people without articles on Wikipedia Nuttah68 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete few (if any) of those listed would pass an AfD. Also covered by Wikipedia Is NOT a Web Guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly useless. Works better as a category. Rohirok 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a case where a category is infinitely better than a list. This list is useless, and the vast majority of the people on it have no articles about them, and wouldn't be notable enough per WP:BIO/WP:PORN BIO to warrant any. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a fact[edit]

POV fork, for a minor creationist slogan, and not a common search term. One of many such forks from author. FeloniousMonk 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in what way it is a POV fork? For example, has it been tagged for {pov} problems? Or does it emphasize or hide anything in a biased way? --Uncle Ed 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; besides, nobody would search for an article with this name. NawlinWiki 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and merge referenced material into relevant articles. Vsmith 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after merge is complete. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to where? FeloniousMonk 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yep, basic POV fork. Gazpacho 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's helpful that Ed has highlighted the lack of sources in that section of the controversy article, but why can't he add them there? Gazpacho 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into controversy article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article can be deleted. A few sentances and points can find a home Creation-evolution controversy as footnotes.--Roland Deschain 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a redirect, since merges end in redirects, then delete the redirect, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No new infomation, useless pov fork. No suprise looking at who made the article.Rorrenig 07:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Ed back to his old games — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - phrases are rarely encyclopaedic, and this one definitely isn't. Guettarda 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork ... Creation-evolution controversy is sufficient. --Dennette 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another POV fork by the user Goatan 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After it's deleted, I will check to ensure all the new info in this article was merged into at least one other article. I still don't think the distinction between "fact" and "theory" has been clarified. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The consensus was to just delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of furniture companies[edit]

This is redundant with the category Category:Furniture manufacturers. This was previously prodded, but the prod was removed without explanation. -- Where 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iddea[edit]

author first created this article as pure advertspam for a company called IDDEA. Now recreated as less of an overt ad, but still seems spammy to me. NawlinWiki 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE ccwaters 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands, this is an attempt to define IDDEA as a neologism. Unsourced, usage unverified. Also, this thing is so loaded down with business-babble buzzwords that it's just about impossible to discern any meaningful content from the article. Fan-1967 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable company/concept. Can't see how this would pass WP:CORP Ohconfucius 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bass River Yacht Club[edit]

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would of relisted this but it's an obvious A7 nn-club. Jaranda wat's sup 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film club[edit]

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete being unnotable is a terrible reason for deletion. Failing WP:V is an excellent one however, let's use that. WilyD 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WilyD -- Whpq 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V and WP:ORG as club at a single school. Dump the history and then recycle the title as a redirect to film society if that makes sense to others. --Kinu t/c 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as the page has been moved to DA-IICT film club which is relevant as the film club is run by the student community of the university of DA-IICT.
    • Comment: Merely changing the name of the article does not make it anymore legitimate per WP:V and WP:ORG, I think. --Kinu t/c 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The page is relevant as the club is a part of the University. Specific reason for the deletion is demanded.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icesalmon[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Almost a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was planning on prod'ing this in a few days. There is competitive and professional video game playing, but the external links offer no evidence of this for this person. No verifiability to being that 'professional' or even paid for his work. The picture was recently deleted as license-less. Kevin_b_er 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V - no other argument is worthwhile WilyD 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WilyD. -- Whpq 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way to really verify any of the info in this article. (Failure of WP:V) --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (I think under G7, even though the deletion tag says vanity) by User:Alex Bakharev. ColourBurst 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WheelMedic[edit]

NN local auto detailing business. SPAM ccwaters 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry explains the business name "WheelMedic", information verifiable by third party. Can remove external links if needed. --Ebrady 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was not clear on WP:CORP, sorry to take your time -- Delete.--Ebrady 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series[edit]

I have been watching and maintaining the site since the last nomination of this article a year ago (with ended with no decision), but have to conclude that much of the information here contains a sustantial amount of WP:OR and opinion-based assumptions (regarding what vehicles they resemble). There is also the question of whether the list would be significant in Wikipedia in the long run. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

  • Keep If you don't lie you musn't read it. But for many GTA-fans it's a great page for looking up certain vehicles. Look at all the pictures and the information. None-GTA-fans musn't read it but I think it's important to save this article. ProSieben 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete had it actually been a good reference page i would have voted to keep it, but it it merely a list of all the names thoughout the GTA series. It doesn't feature any other information (pictures, locations, usefull info). So, since it's just a list of car names, i say delete it. Xyzar 30 August, 2006 (19:31, GMT+1)
  • Delete - the problem with these game guides is that if they are not copyvio they are OR. It is hard for them to be anything else. This one is OR. I simply do not see the use to which it would be put. BlueValour 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful reference for a popular game. Lancsalot 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been pretty useful to answer simple questions about the vehicles. At least this page could be merged with the Grand Theft Auto main page on Wikipedia. User:kidclam 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified original research. Only links are to a GTA wiki, which itself doesn't offer any reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, notable aspect of best-selling video game franchise. — CharlotteWebb 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realty Income Corporation[edit]

Ad for a real estate investment trust. De-prod'ed without comment. Looks like an investment sales pitch to me. Fan-1967 15:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Húsönd 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and according to Yahoo!, they're one of the top six companies in the real estate investment trust business. I haven't checked to see if it definitely meets WP:CORP, though. The article could probably be cleaned up to make it sound less like an ad. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. The corporation may be notable, but this article is pure pitch. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CORP per company is traded under the NYSE and is prominent in the properties investment business. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CORP specifies that a company be part of "ranking indices" (e.g. Fortune 500), or used to calculate "stock market indices" (e.g. the 30 companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average), not merely listed on an exchange. 2,800 companies are traded on the NYSE. Fan-1967 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Flight 923[edit]

Nothing much actually happened. Plane makes emergency landing because someone had a panic attack. Happens 2 or 3 times a month. - Blood red sandman 16:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot or transwiki to Wikinews. Non-notable on its own, but somewhat relevant considering the incident's close incidence to the uncovering of the plot. Doesn't need its own article. - RPIRED 18:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: IIRC, transwiki to Wikinews is not possible, due to issues with GFDL and CC compatibility. --Kinu t/c 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing inherently notable in United Flight 923. There are several of them every week. This article deals with a miniscule part of the flight's history etc., a false alarm which has received 'one coverage' as defined in wiki notability criteria in WP:BIO. I contend that it is not a signicant event in aviation or terrorism history or the history of the airline in that it would not have a significant impact on future events that suggests that it would pass a 5 year test, let alone a 100 year test. Ohconfucius 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with Northwest Airlines Flight 42, this flight is not notable for United Airlines. Tinlinkin 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Security scare, but will soon be pretty much forgotten. Planes having to be diverted is a pretty common occurrence and usually not encyclopedically significant unless the plane was in some sort of peril (e.g. American Airlines Flight 63 is notable). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we won't remember this in a week. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - the fringeness of the theory was well demonstrated by the delete advocates. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis[edit]

Courtesy blanked on request -- Samir धर्म 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu[edit]

This is a non-notable hospital that appears to fail WP:CORP based upon the information in the article and a cursory search. I considered merging to Quebec City, but there appeared to be no good place in that article to mention the hospital. Erechtheus 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Withdraw nomination due to changes made to this article to establish an article about a clearly notable hospital. Erechtheus 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - My understanding is that l'hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu is a fairly common or obvious name for hospitals in French, and that there are other hospitals bearing the name; I know of one in Paris. No opinion yet about whether this stub should be deleted or whether hospitals need to meet WP:CORP. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and merge the data here with Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, a superior stub about the same institution. This article is apparently concerned chiefly with the current hospital building. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and disambiguate), large hospital. Kappa 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A hospital with no particular distinguishing features. Hundreds of thousands of similar hospitals everywhere I'm sure. Wickethewok 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. University hospital founded in 1639. up+l+and 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This hospital, per its article at time of nomination, was founded less than 100 years ago. I am not certain that those who are suggesting that this article is simply misnamed are correct, though I would agree that the hospital in question that was founded in 1639 and has a mention in the article about the city already would be a notable hospital deserving of an article. What makes you think this is the same hospital? Erechtheus 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assumed the date of foundation in the article (and in one of the links) was correct. 1928 seems to be when the oldest part of the current hospital complex was completed. In either case, I think a major university hospital is notable (at least as notable as schools, community colleges, suburban railway stations and most sportspeople), even if it would be founded only in 1928. up+l+and 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A teaching hospital such as this one is as individual and distinctive as a university. The areas of specialization and the early founding of this hospital make it even more notable. Note that the hospital's correct name is Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, which gets about 81,700 Google hits, and its parent organization, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, about 64,500. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would compare a single teaching hospital more to an individual university building/department more than a university itself. Wickethewok 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD serves as a good example of the dangers of labelling a non-English-language institution as not-notable. If you suspect that such an organization is not notable, ask for advice from someone with the relevant language skills rather than moving immediately to an AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I disagree with this premise. This is an issue involving erroneous naming of the hospital and an erroneous founding date when I proposed this AfD. If this were an English language article that was one sentence in length with an incorrect name and incorrect factual data, the same result would have likely occurred. I am withdrawing this nomination even though I think the article I nominated was deserving of deletion because the change in subject matter to one that is clearly notable destroys any need for deletion.Erechtheus 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Intended to let this one go as a done deal. But I couldn’t resist the temptation to weigh in on TruthbringerToronto's comment. Periodically we kill useful material because someone with English as a second language (ESL) does a poor job of starting it. The question often is, are we dealing with an 11 year old boy feeling his oats or a less than articulate ESL contributor. It is always a great pleasure to see this process correctly sort out an AfD nomination. Williamborg (Bill) 01:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then this is only partially correct, since Montréal also has an important and ancient L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu (as does Paris). So the truly correct answer is that someday in the vast reservior of futre edits, L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu will be a disambiguation link. But not today. Williamborg (Bill) 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The articles at Hôtel-Dieu and Hotel Dieu may be of interest. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto Union[edit]

Been a redirect to mulatto from the day it was created in December 2005 to July 2006 when it was unredirected. Since then it's been one of the following: blank, vandalized, hoax, non-notable website page, or, as it is now, a minor bit of mulatto information and a gallery. Its main contributor, Mixcockies, is an indefinitely blocked user. Propose redirect to mulatto or delete and salt. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recom[edit]

Recom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Old nom failed for obvious reason. However, I believe this article does not meet our notability guidelines. I have nothing against Recom; I am a member myself. Nevertheless, I cannot find any independent sources to verify the claims made by the article, and most of the Google hits are irrelevant. The Alexa rank is not convincing either. On the balance, considering the article makes unverifiable claims (we don't have independent sources to back them up), and without these claims the article would clearly not be notable, I believe the article should not be included at the moment. (And IIRC, the original nominator was a co-founder of Recom...) Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosciences[edit]

This term is a neologism that has no definition or accepted meaning. Violation of WP:OR (it's a made-up word), WP:VER (not verifiable), WP:RS (Source(s) of "term" are not-notable at all), WP:NOT (not a dictionary, especially for proposed neologisms not from reliable source(s)) Kenosis 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need to AfD copyvios... Add {{copyvio}} or {{db-copyvio|url=Suchandsuch.com}} if within the last 48 hours. Grandmasterka 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mordecai[edit]

NN copyvio [15] memorial. ccwaters 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 R2 by User:The Anome. ColourBurst 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actionreaction[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable business; creator User:ACTIONREACTION unsurprisingly deprodded, so brought here. NawlinWiki 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stong delete both - solely corporate promotion, few google hits --Nigel (Talk) 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Spamvertising going on here, nor is business nonnotable. Few Google hits due to misnamed article. Search "ACTIONREACTION Technology Solutions" ACTIONREACTION 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Fails WP:CORP, and the editor is, in my opinion, a bad source of information (Attempting to promote the site even with his name) or attempting Search engine omptimization, which is pretty sad... The company IS ranked #5 when you search for Actionreaction (Of course, a myspace account beat it...). (And the links to the website itself have ?Wikipedia in their header, which seems like this is something the company itself has been planning, which is sort of like writing a biography about yourself.... of course, ?Whatever isn't anything different than the index... and I can't see if it's a different page since their sitemap is broken). And the article itself is almost copied for the main page of the site. I'd suggest the author finds an indication of meeting WP:CORP before continuing to protest this deletion. Logical2u 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoooooopwhoopwhoop: It's been userfied.
See User:ACTIONREACTION. -- The Anome 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has now been blocked as per username policy, and the other copy of the article has been deleted as an attempt to circumvent afd process. -- The Anome 17:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moneysavingexpert.com[edit]

This article was deleted after the first AfD decided it was spam, then rewritten in user space and after a deletion review restored into the article space. The questions for this round are then: 1. Does this article conform with WP:NPOV now, and 2. Is the company itself notable? Procedural listing, so I abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Generates quite a bit of hits on Google and has a pretty good Alexa ranking. The creator of the website is a well-known journalist, as well. It also has been written about in newspaper sources, which passes WP:WEB. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The website is notable, and easily meets WP:WEB as the subject of several third party "works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles" and "has won a well known and independent award". The Alexa rating is about 3,000. (All referenced in the article.) I abstain on the NPOV issue. Mr Stephen 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. It's referenced well enough, and seems to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, meets WP:WEB guideline on multiple counts. RFerreira 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this article really NOPV? I have looked at the article and looked at the website it describes. The text in the article seems to closely reflect the text that the website uses to promote itself. Furthermore, though it is not mentioned in the article, the website described in the article is apparently a for-profit website. External links that consumers are encouraged to click on to see recommendations of how to save money, result in the website itself receiving money from the commercial websites that the consumer links to. I am concerned that this article is in effect advertising a for-profit website. I think we should look into this more carefully before deciding. Dendennis 21:35, 29 August 2006
    • 'Comment. The exact same could be said about any notable for-profit website. RFerreira 06:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment (from article contributer). The text of the article does closely reflect the the text the site uses to promote itself, but how else could the article be done and properly reference sources? If you look at newspaper reviews and mentions (e.g. here or search for it here) of the site then possibly you may be able to find more NPoV reviews, but from what I can see newspapers (being lazy) just seem to reprint information from press releases or just lift text directly from the site themselves. I could put up things I find negative about the site, but without finding someone in print who agrees to quote, it would be my personal review. It does say in the info box that the site is commercial and more could be said on this, but I didn't see any Wikipedia articles mentioning how other sites were funded and I wondered how appropriate it was. I'll would gladly write a whole section on this right now, but I'm reluctant to change the article during a review Aldaden 08:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Info on how site funded available here Aldaden 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... which is already in the article as reference 4 (atm), titled " Moneysavingexpert - How this site is financed". Mr Stephen 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to meet WP:WEB on many counts. Let me declare an interest though, I came to Wiki after reading one of Martin Lewis's blogs recently and am a regular user and fan of the site, which is a huge vast resource of help to many people; and widely acclaimed as such in the UK. It's interesting to compare it to similar UK money sites. We have an entry for Moneysupermarket (Alexa rank 5414 compared to MoneySavingExpert 3083) and even Housepricecrash (Alexa rank 15,000). This site even has a motion in the UK House of Commons supporting its work. As for the finances, I've just been reading through it and can't see any conflict. Having read the linked source on the subject it seemed clear to me that this site is 'ethical stance with the principles of being free to use with no advertisements[3], independent, unbiased and journalistic in all its research and money-saving articles' whilst at the same time commercial (as noted in the info box). Perhaps its also worth us all having perspective we're on Wiki, this article can be changed and amended we're really talking about whether the entry is worthy and its clear to me it is. Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.79.78 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied to User:Bainto. NawlinWiki 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bainto[edit]

Created by a User:Bainto, obvious vanity article. Prodded and deprodded. Kirjtc2 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkette[edit]

Seems to be a neologism of some sort; google search for turkette napkin gets 5 hits, none relevant. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't need an article on everything on Wikipedia. Besides, it's non-notable...and it's a napkin. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a source can be found -- I didn't know those things had a name! See Aglet. NawlinWiki 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only ever heard them called napkin rings, personally, and in addition to the aforementioned search done by the nominator no dictionary that I have lists any such word as "turkette". Uncle G 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsupportive Google hits and no sources listed. Wickethewok 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:V as far as the name is concerned, and as to the thing itself, if there's anything encyclopedic to be said about it, it's not in this article. I think we do not need an encyclopedia to tell us that paper napkin rings "come in many different colours" and are held together by glue. And as to them being "generally 4 inches by 1 inch" in size, well, according to who? Utter twaddle. Sandstein 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best this is a rename to napkin ring. As Sandstein points out, the article needs severe attention to eliminate original research and to actually base it upon sources. The answer to the question of whether there is scope for encyclopaedia coverage of napkin rings is "Yes, there definitely is.". It belongs either standalone in napkin ring or merged from there into napkin. Uncle G 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that an article could be written on napkin rings. But I don't see the value in preserving any of the text here, obviously written off the top of someone's head, and more than likely with with a simply made-up name. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I think the spelling of this small piece of American domestic culture is "torquette! Giano | talk 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as explained here [16] as................"hence the name torquette, which relates to the winding of rope" The google hits for turckette are not really relevant to the napkin at all. A torquette is obviously a piece of binding hence the term could theoretically be used as a napkin ring Giano | talk 13:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Keeps did not refute the consensus.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus science[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion nearly a year and a half ago but no consensus was reached (here). User Dicksonlaprade tagged it for AfD, but added the old AfD for this article, so I made it. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus was to keep the article. There is no reason to revisit this issue. --SpinyNorman 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The result was "no consensus." By default these are kept, but may be revisited later. Andrew Levine 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for the confusion.

Here are the possible reasons for keeping this article as is: (1-3) the quotations by Crichton, Josephson, and Paltridge in the "History and Background" section; (4-5) the Lindzen and Lomborg examples in the "Resistance to Contradiction" (??!!) section; and (6) the widespread use of the phrase, as attested by the fact that Google turns up a large number of hits when you type in "'consensus science'". Reasons 1-5 are dealt with by Dicksonlaprade (me) on this article's discussion page. All that's left of these reasons are the quotations by Crichton and Paltridge. Not enough to save the article by themselves, in my view.

As for the Google thing, a perusal of the first twenty search results for the phrase "'consensus science'" shows that the vast majority of them fall into one of the following categories: the Wikipedia entry which I am discussing and the related entry at Answers.com; references to Michael Crichton's speech; things which have nothing to do with "consensus science" at all (e.g., the book title Forged Consensus: Science, Technology, etc.); or blog entries (for, e.g., fare.livejournal.com and blogcritics.org). Conspicuously lacking are references by scientists or by historians or philosophers of science to the concept.

I also did a search for articles and reviews in the science and history/philosophy of science journals in the database JSTOR. The only references to the phrase "'consensus science'" which I turned up were to the aforementioned book title. Considering that JSTOR indexes articles from such prestigious journals as Science, Evolution, and Philosophy of Science, this absence is especially damning.

As per the "Verifiability" policy, it would appear that the best resource for this concept is Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame--hardly a philosopher or historian of science--and his epigones. This being the case, I see no reason for this article not to become a subdivision of "scientific consensus." Giving this dubious concept its own entry makes it appear that some reliable professionals give it credence--an appearance for which I can find no evidence.

Let's Delete this article. Dicksonlaprade 18:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This was already decided --SpinyNorman 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" is not a decision. Andrew Levine 09:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, as per Afd/Wikietiquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion), the debate on this page "is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." I don't see an argument in support of your "Keep" recommendation, and I would like to see one. Dicksonlaprade 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have failed to make your case for why it should be deleted, I'm not sure any arguments I could make would be relevant. The fact is that the term is used by scientists and laypeople alike and similar terms (e.g. Cargo Cult Science) are also in use. You haven't given a good reason why an article describing a valid and current concept like this should be deleted? --SpinyNorman 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dickson's convincingly-laid-out argument. Andrew Levine 09:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vsmith 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of hot air blown about nothing significant. There is often consensus in science. Sometimes it is proven incorrect. Kind of like anything else that people try to figure out. But the terminology in this article is used to promote a strongly NPOV stance. I see no way that it will ever meet WP:POV. Dipics 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - Wikipedia is not limited to topics covered by science journals. As stated in the previous AfD, this article attempts to describe potential pitfalls of scientific consensus. --Spiffy sperry 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as this article's primary purpose is to "describe potential pitfalls of scientific consensus," it seems that the material in this article would be better placed on the "scientific consensus" page. Insofar as "consensus science" is a distinct concept/term with relatively wide usage in scientific circles, it would deserve its own article--but I see no evidence for this. By way of comparison, Ann Coulter's recent book Godless uses the term "flatulent raccoon theory" to describe the theory of evolution because, in her mind, it is such a ridiculous theory. There are many Wikipedia articles where this fact about her could be mentioned, but since the term itself comes only from Ann Coulter and her epigones, there is no need to give it its own entry. The same applies here: without Michael Crichton and those who quote him approvingly (outside of the scientific community), there is no "consensus science." Dicksonlaprade 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good searching. HOWEVER: the article "Climate Consensus and the End of Science" is written by Terence Corcoran of the "Financial Post"--not exactly the best source in terms of Verifiability. Item #3 on your list refers to the term "consensus science" only in a Michael Crichton quotation. Item #4's only citation to the phrase "consensus science" is a link to one of the 7 articles in Nature, the one by Pielke (Pielke is also the author of #4).
I checked and it turns out that JSTOR, the database which I used, does not include Nature,which explains the absence of these articles which you mention. HOWEVER: the first of the 7 entries in Nature makes no reference to "consensus science" except in the title, while the second is by Pielke (referenced by entry #4 in your own list). Out of all the journals catalogued by JSTOR plus the journal Nature, there are thus only half a dozen actual uses to the term. The case for KEEP is stronger than first appears, but 6-7 clear references in dozens of journals (JSTOR catalogues 62 journals in "Biological Sciences" alone) and in over 20 Google search results is still not a very strong case from the standpoint of Verifiability. Dicksonlaprade 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the reason you gave for deletion has been invalidated, can we expect you to withdraw your request that the article be deleted? --SpinyNorman 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has? News to me (and to Guettarda and JoshuaZ and FeloniousMonk, as well). Out of over 20 Google search results and over 60 journals, the best resource for this concept is a half-dozen references in a single journal and TV and novel writer Michael Crichton. Thomas Kuhn doesn't use the concept and neither (to my knowledge) do Karl Popper, Daniel Dennett, Paul Feyerabend, or any respected zoologists, botanists, physicists, epidemiologists, astronomers. . . .
Also: the phrase "the reason you gave for deletion" is not quite accurate since both here and on the article's discussion page I listed several reasons (having to do with the saccharine and pellagra examples, the Lomborg and Lindzen examples, etc.) This is why I am not withdrawing my request. Anything in this article will fit quite tidily under "Scientific consensus," and nothing in this article stands on its own from the standpoint of Verifiability. 129.15.127.254 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Apologies. This is me. Dicksonlaprade 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, Crichton is a scientist as well. Why isn't he a valid source for the usage? And if he isn't good enough, why isn't Nature a good enough source? --SpinyNorman 08:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crichton is not a scientist. He is a TV and novel writer who went to medical school and (according to his Wikipedia entry) taught anthropology at Cambridge for a while. Nature is a good source, but the problem is that it is the only good source which uses the concept of "consensus science." When several dozen peer-reviewed journals fail to turn up more than six uses of a concept, this says that the concept does not deserve its own entry. Dicksonlaprade 12:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know "the best resource" is from a single journal? I stumbled on some usage in one journal, but has a search really been done? If I search dozens of medical journals have I searched anything which is relevant to this topic? Can I claim "Statue of Liberty" is not a valid topic because not one medical journal mentions it? (SEWilco 06:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]


  • Delete per nom. It's a page that was started by a repeatedly-banned editor, basically to advance a POV. It has no encyclopaedic value, only argumentative value. Guettarda 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead characters from Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

There are many other series that have for more dead characters, not only in video games, but also comic books, movies, TV series, anime, and countless other media forms, and none of them seem to have any kind of "list of dead characters from" articles. The status of a character's life, and whether or not he or she has died, can be addressed on an individual basis in that character's own article, the game's article, or wherever else information on that character appears. Matt S. 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marc Shepherd 18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As an indiscriminant list. Wickethewok 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having read the list, most of the "deaths" here are speculative or non-canonical. Example: "Sally Acorn was thought to be dead in the controversial Endgame series (issues #47-50), but turned out not to be, due to Sega of America refusing her death." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stupid.-Kmaguir1 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 9w6d 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate list of speculation. Various failures of WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of articles killed on Wikipedia. Kekeke. Delete. Dekimasu 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Game-list cruft. --Kunzite 12:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. In addition, it's also missing the most important fact of all, which is that Sonic himself died halfway through the fourth stage every single time I picked up a controller. — Haeleth Talk 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Paddies[edit]

Unreferenced Neologism. Prod removed. Google hits result in a lot of things like mirrors of wikipedia, and urban dictionary in the top results. Crossmr 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Move to Plastic Paddy, which is a well-known phrase. A google search will show references, here are two to start with: [17] and [18]. Catchpole 18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything2.com isn't a reference, its a self-published site anyone can write anything on, much like urban dictionary.--Crossmr 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears to be a term solely used by the people involved in this survey. That article doesn't give any indication that its a widespread popular term in use.--Crossmr 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well here are some sources of the terms being used in interviews. I will reiterate that it is in widespread use in Britain and Ireland. [19] and [20]. Catchpole 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per given reasons above. --ChinaNailStorm 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.- I found this article on a random article search and it's elitist euro nonsense that casts Wikipedia in a bad light. Sam 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal nurse consultant[edit]

Non-notable profession; basicaly veiled advertising for the firm that sells expensive training. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Nurse Investigator. Marc Shepherd 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write. Well it seems as if it's written in vain. However, a Google test shows quite a bit of hits for this profession, so it appears to be notable. A re-write will probably fix up this article. --  Nishkid64  Talk  18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and NPOV. The external links could probably use particular scrutiny after looking at the other AfDs you posted. --Wafulz 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs serious re-write but that is not a reason for deletion. In the meantime, it probably should have a {{POV}} or something similar. Agent 86 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete without prejudice, per nominator. The concept may be notable, but this is crypto-spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely do not delete This is a legitimate nursing specialty regardless of the spammy source for the article. It is as legitimate as the other articles on nursing specialties such as pedes or nurse anaesthetist. THB02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely do not deleteThis a real profession that has a fair amount of searches per month. Some of the sites listed are 100% SPAM and should not get a link. The ALNC and NALNC are the two main organizations according to all of my research. The NALNC is the only real organization, the others are spam presented by their owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) \User's sole contribution is this comment.
  • Strong Keep as I quietly raise my hand as a legal nurse consultant - I've worked for myself full-time since 2002. The article does need a rewrite and there are definite differences between AALNC and NACLNC - http://www.nalnc.org. The Legal Nurse website, owned by the Vickie Milazzo Institutes, is a for-profit enterprise - one woman's company with claims of earning $150 per hour as a legal nurse, which are entirely false and mistleading. (I recognize some of the article's text - it's from the company that holds conferences and advertises false and misleading statements. NALNC - http://www.nalnc.org - is the only real organization. The profession, however, is a serious subspecialty of nursing, just like critical care nursing and the other subspecialties. I don't need Wikipedia validation to continue with my work because you guys don't pay me. However, the nursing articles are atrocious. Deleting articles about recognized nursing specialties with which lay editors aren't familiar doesn't help the encyclopedia as a whole. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayukawa Shinobu[edit]

Not notable. Would not pass the proposed WP:PORN BIO, or a Japanese equivalent, having no notable awards in Japan, no notable magazine appearance, no notable mainstream work, etc etc. Delete --- Hong Qi Gong 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Winner (TV series)[edit]

A TV programme that has not happened yet can hardly be encyclopaedic BlackJack | talk page 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it's deleted now, it would most likely be re-created when the show comes out. I think we should keep it. --  Nishkid64  Talk  18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's in production and scheduled for broadcast, verifiable through public sources. Durova 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an announced show from a major broadcast network. It's notable, and there isn't much crystal ball about it. Erechtheus 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now it's sourced. In addition to the warning message about future events, this should be enough to keep the page up to our standards. --M@rēino 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep savidan(talk) (e@) 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D4 (people)[edit]

Unsourced, likely OR, or neologism. Prod removed (with no explanation) by an IP. Crossmr 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Bobby" Freeman[edit]

subject is not notable BlackJack | talk page 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable because he was a two-term lieutenant governor of his state, a member of the state legislature, and a city judge. He was an important political player in LA in the 1980s. Billy Hathorn 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Billy HathornBilly Hathorn 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he was an American lawyer who dabbled in politics. How does that make him notable, especially in world terms? --BlackJack | talk page 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serving in a state legislature alone makes one notable to be included in Wikipedia. He was in the legislature for 12 years. He was in Who's Who in America, 1984.

Okay, you've convinced me. I'll withdraw the nomination. I suggest in future you make sure a new article meets wiki standards upfront and quotes several sources. Nothing personal: I'm actually helping you out here. Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An elected public official who held reasonably high office. Durova 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Notability of subject satisfactorily established but suggest article is improved to meet wiki standards. --BlackJack | talk page 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Galbally[edit]

Self-aggrandizing autobiographical article written by the subject (User:Rhondag). If the subject is indeed a "prominent Australian public intellectual," someone will eventually write a good article about her. Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical articles applies. Anirvan 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the related page Galbally, Rhonda because it is a duplicate of Rhonda Galbally. Anirvan 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. *sip* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbomb (cocktail)[edit]

Non-notable cocktail. Entirely unreferenced except for a recipe (and WP:NOT a recipe book), it is full of opinion and OR. The article is not improving with time. Quale 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. --BlackJack | talk page 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: what's a "notable" cocktail? I've ordered them. The bartenders knew what they were. How much more notability does a cocktail need? -Acjelen 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can establish verifiability that it's not just a local drink, then keep but otherwise transwiki to wikibooks and delete the rest. ColourBurst 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a popular drink for sure - but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is NOT a recipe or how to site. Once the recipe is removed, this is just an article about a trendy but ultimately non particularly notable drink. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what "local" is to the original editor, but I have friends in Southern California for whom this is their drink of choice. I don't drink them myself, because I don't drink stout. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep.I've heard of it, it may still not be encyclopedic though.-Kmaguir1 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of it, and I don't drink. Seems to be a widely-available drink and should merit a mention. I imagine a good editor could turn the recipe section into more encyclopedic prose. Zagalejo 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a commonly ordered drink in bars, and I have had quite a few. BadBrad7431

delete: it's in such bad taste. it's like having a cocktail consisting of two sambucas which one sets alight and then knocking over, and calling it the twin towers

  • keep, pretty widely known. Stilgar135 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC) user:svkumar21 Keep, it's known throughout.[reply]
  • weak Keep I've not heard of it, but it seems enough other people have to say it's noteworthy - Blood red sandman 15:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, judging from the comments above it seems notable enough. bbx 08:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had 4 last night ... and the bar had them on special... quite clearly a popular (and therefore notable) mixed drink... if it must leave wiki... move it to Wikibooks (cookbook or bartenders guide).  ALKIVAR™ 18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of other cocktails that are no more notable than this one, in Wikipedia. A short representative recipe (as opposed to a laundry list of recipes and variants) should be valid if it helps the reader understand what the cocktail is. Yes, the article needs citing and cleaning up, so what, that can be said of plenty of articles. Tubezone 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Flash[edit]

Unsourced, unlinked, vanity biography. Westenra 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facola[edit]

A local drink, a Google search yields few results. Peter O. (Talk) 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising for a NN product. A local soft drink company with a Tripod website. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smerdis. Sandstein 06:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, subject matter was non-verifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor vashi[edit]

Non-notable cartoonist. Fails WP:GOOGLE and possibly WP:BIO (haven't checked into that yet) --  Nishkid64  Talk  19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does he even exist or is it a pseudonym http://redprimer.com/ : "Attempts to locate the author, Victor Vashi, or his heirs have all failed. The message of this book is so vital and well delivered I felt it a shame not to share it with the world." --ArmadilloFromHell 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If notability can be determined through the addition of references, etc., Keep. If not, Delete. --CPAScott 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero nexis hits. This cat is invisible. Uucp 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Television Series[edit]

This page suffers from the usual subjective list original research and neutral point of view problems. In addition, it would seem that a category would better fit this sort of endeavour. I'm not using the word cruft, but I see no need for this article to continue in its present form. Erechtheus 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This article would purely be subjective as seen with such shows as Emeril and Joey. It's bound to lead to some edit wars, so might as well delete it. --  Nishkid64  Talk  19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. vague and arbitrary criteria ensure this will always be a no original research violation. I'm not even sure a catagory would be suitable here.--Isotope23 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I actually meant a set of categories with objective criteria that would in effect cover the same ground. If they do not already exist, I would like to pursue categories for shows with fewer than ten episodes, shows with fewer than twenty episodes, and so on. Erechtheus 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, a series of well defined & objective categories would probably work.--Isotope23 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there are certain criteria used within the television industry to define successful shows, there are none that are widely accepted enough to maintain this sort of list. Without an accepted criteria, any listing on this article would be unavoidably POV.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, nonsense/unsourced/unverifiable protologisms. NawlinWiki 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skills You Can't Teach[edit]

Textbook case of things made up in school one day. -- Fan-1967 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nawlin, use your new mighty powers to close the AfD early with a clear consensus! Do it! You know you want to! :) VoiceOfReason 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
must resist... lure of power.... nahhh. NawlinWiki 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -as per nom -- Whpq 19:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalenne, New Harmana[edit]

Fictitious. Only Google results are to this article. Peter O. (Talk) 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. There's no point in discussing a hoax. --  Nishkid64  Talk  19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoaxes go through AFD precisely because they have to be discussed. Notability and verifiability are not decisions that can be reliably made by one pair of eyes. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only other option I see would be a move to the creator's user page namespace. Erechtheus 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purports to be from some manner of fiction, but various Google results seem to turn up nothing. Furthermore, seeing as the last name of the creator claimed in the article is the username of the editor who started it and added all sustainable content, its a clear candidate for deletion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia isn't a publisher of original ficiton. -- Whpq 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V, as it is original fiction. Do not move to User namespace, as that is no more for material irrelevant to the Wikipedia project than the Main namespace; WP:NOT a free webhost applies. --Kinu t/c 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, or in this case, fiction. Inherently unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Shapes[edit]

WP:WEB ccwaters 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. --  Nishkid64  Talk  19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, though just a suggestion to the original nominator to include a few more words to assuage the speedy keepers. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per author request (CSD:G7) Thryduulf 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the tragical Christ[edit]

I ran a Google search and no results came up. If this church exists, it looks like it is too small to merit an entry. -- P.B. Pilhet 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

  • Delete No evidence is offered that the church even exsists.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No hits for the church or the founder. It seems like a hoax. --  Nishkid64  Talk  19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a hoacx. No sources provided, nor any that can be found -- Whpq 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-No@hoax. The founder is as easy to find out about as a normal man who decides to build a church in his backyard. He is a private person. Also the church is probably very small based on the requirements for membership and its strange doctrines. Leave it for now until more evidence can be found through intensive investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triple A soldier (talk • contribs) (User:Triple A soldier also wrote the article under discussion.)
    • Delete as per the arguments of the anonymous contributor above. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also unlikely that "Rakuma-Gageen Al is also estimated to be worth millions of dollars" would be able to keep himself unknown at all on the Internet. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair
  • Delete. Not notable.-Kmaguir1 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now until more evidence can be found through intensive investigation. Those are the rules here. Fan-1967 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a sigh—why did I even open it? Williamborg (Bill) 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article represents that "many" consider Pastor Al's claims of having been visited by Jesus to be fraudulent, and that he is "generally" criticized for espousing polygamy. These claims suggest that Pastor Al's activities are already known to (and opposed by) the general public, but the lack of Google hits indicates that they aren't. The subject is unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 05:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Very close to a hoax. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Triple A soldier, Wikipedia is not where things go in order to become notable; articles are written about things that already are. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPsteups@these comments. Delete if you all want, I understand I am not any big scholar like you all, so I guess my contribution isnt wanted. Fair enough. I'd keep it here though...I understand it isnt verifiable so its okay but if someday such a church is found then what will you all do? Remember there are alot of things underneath your radars that people want to know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triple A soldier (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wright's paradox[edit]

A single joke by Steven Wright that has been exatrapolated into a "paradox". The title gets 3 hits. Looks like entirely original research to me. Delete as such. Wickethewok 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR -- Whpq 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --  Nishkid64  Talk  19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mathematical paradox which happen to be labeled as Wright's paradox. No matter from where a paradox is extrapolated, be it a joke, a race by a tortoise and Achilles or some guy from Crete; a paradox is a paradox. I am well aware of the "No original research" rule, and this one is not. (If it was, I'd not be able to resist naming it after myself) Though I can not verify or give a link to a author or another place that it was published as this paradox was 'picked up' circulating around the campus. A search in Internet does not give even a close result neither to the type of the paradox or to its name. It certainly is an original work but not of the author of the article. Hopefully someone will come forward after seeing it published and claim authorship or a info will emerge latter here or somewhere else. Because the authorship can not be verified it would be bad to delete it from wikipedia just for that reason, as the paradox itself is a solid one and a very fine sample of the nature of geometric progression. Paradoxes don't come by very often and should not be 'killed' so fast when they do. --Otritos 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the authorship can not be verified it would be bad to delete it from wikipedia — On the contrary, deleting unverifiable information is good for Wikipedia, and is one of our strongest reasons for deletion. You have just made an excellent case for the deletion of this article. If you want to make a case for keeping, find and cite some sources. Nothing else will do. We insist upon sources, here. Uncle G 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the reason behind the unverifiable information being deleted in wikipedia?--Otritos 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then Uncle G, how did The Bible ended up not being deleted? Ok, I know this is not exactly a proper example but my point is this article simply can not be verified for time being, it is unverifiable. Even though as a piece of information it is self evident, it is not something you can sit over and wonder if it's true or not. It is a mathematical demonstration. Just because the author is not known and there is a possibility that he will probably not be known, what is the next step according the wikipedia rules? To delete it? That is, as I said a paradox is a rare phenomenon and to think that one of the few paradoxes of this century does not get to find a place on the wikipedia because no one claims an authorship and a source can not be found Isn't this self defying for the purpose of wikipedia? The only thing that will help the cause for wikipedia with this case is to leave it there as it is and if a verifiable info emerges, good! If not, what is the reason and point of deleting it? I'd like to stress on this again, the article by itself is a unique entry of a paradox. And I am sorry I can't verify or state a source but this does not contradict the core idea behind verification i.e, validity and value as knowledge. It is simply sad to think something as rare as a paradox will have in its early history the fate of not finding a place in the corpus of wikipedia because physically it was not possible to track down an author or source. The best thing to do I think will be to give the article a chance and let it live for at least a month and if no verification can be obtained during that time then do whatever you think is proper.--Otritos 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have rules, and Verification is #1. This is not a place for original essays, or unsourced material. There are blogs and freeweb pages for that. This is an encyclopedia. Fan-1967 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and Otritos, please familiarise yourself with the policies here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Expanding the joke just makes it unfunny. And it isn't a paradox. JChap2007 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly isn't. Its just a mildly interesting mathmatical oddity that sounds impressive until the math behind it is explained. More importantly, its connection to Wright is completely unsourced. My father taught me this exact same concept when I was young, but we don't call it Doug's Paradox, do we? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to provide a verification. To the users who for some reason imagine the paradox described in the article is not a paradox I just want to say - you guys have a very powerful tool and a huge database right under your fingers. Please use it! Seriously people, do your research before you post a stupid comment on something you don't quite understand. Damn, I can't believe you are voting for deleting the article while you don't even have a clue what paradox is. It is a classical paradox derived from an exponential function describing linear function. Many of the present and Greek paradoxes are based on that. --Otritos 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Isherwood[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. While the article makes him sound fairly famous (being a "major figure in the Young British Artists", being mentioned in several tabloids, being involved in a sex scandal associated with Franz Ferdinand, being an art director for a Japanese movie) I can't any cites for any of it. Nonpareility 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google doesn't bring up anything but this article. Tarret 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it real, it fails WP:V. --  Nishkid64  Talk  20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero nexis hits. No evidence he ever existed.Uucp 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for blatant hoaxery. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so keep. Tyrenius 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132[edit]

This is a contested prod. User:TripleH1976 prodded the article, saying : "this article is entirely frivolous in my opinion. Nothing noteworthy happened". I disagree with the prod for reasons which I shall put before you below. Blood red sandman 19:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KeepI say it needs an article because playing chicken with 381 lives is an excedingly noteworthy occurence. Also, there will likely be a large number of very noteable safety recomendations related to this accident when the investigation is completed, regarding the design of airports, how Air Traffic Control works and why the automatic collision avoidence systems failed. The page for the Teneriffe disaster links here. The cattegory this is listed in is not just 'accidents', it also contains 'incidents', where there was no major damage or injury, but still an important occurence. If almost hitting another jetliner isn't a noteable incident, I don't know what is. Finally (for now), JetBlue Airways Flight 292 survived deletion, and a lot fewer lives were at stake there than in this article. - Blood red sandman 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Shall we document every near miss that ever happens? Notability is necessary. - CobaltBlueTony 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, there's almost one runway incursion incident a day. How many of those does the NTSB investigate? If investigations are a limited occurance, I think that would make it worth an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Two airliners almost hitting each other, notable? I think not. You going to put onto Wikipedia the next guy who cuts in front of you on the road?-Kmaguir1 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as regards the numbers of incursions investigated, almost all but most of these either involve aircraft being there without authorisation but not actually being in the way, or a baggage car taking a shortcut accross the runway, that sort of thing. To airliners coming within a few feet of each other at take-off speeds (which are even higher than cruising speeds} is almost unheard of, in fact the only one I can think of othey than this one is the infamous Tenerife disaster - and we all know the consequences of that one. - Blood red sandman 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Takeoff speeds are not higher than cruising speeds. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what i meant but managed to screw up saying is that the power settings on the engines are much higher for take-off. while I'm on the subject, they would have had enough residual energy to propel the aircraft into each other for several seconds after the impact. - Blood red sandman 23:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable incident. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to add yet another comment to this discusion, just to say, the reason incursions like this are rare and unheard of is that usually the collision avoidance systems designed to prevent this sort of accident/incident from happening usually tell the aircraft involved to stop before they ever get going. Before this incident, the FAA had thought these systems to be unfailible. The fact that they failed on both aircraft and in the control tower and left two aircraft hurtling towards each other with engines at max power for take-off is a very serious and very noteable occurence. - Blood red sandman 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a private pilot, I would like to add a few words here. Incursions happen more often than most realize, TCAS or not (the equipment sandman talks about). The power setting on take off are higher than at cruise however that doesn't mean anything when you are dealing with inertia. A jet traveling at .93Mach has much more inertia than a jet rotating (lifting off speed) at 140-160knots no matter what the engine settings are. Crashes are notable. Incidents like this happen many times a year, though most civilians never hear about or realize they occurred. I suggest that this be removed. (and for those that like aviation, try this link--Brian (How am I doing?) 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not refering to innertia. jet engines at full power do not stop instantly but can instead continue turning with significant power for a few seconds after power failure. Such is true of the Amsterdam air disaster (I don't know the name of the article, sorry). - Blood red sandman 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; not a relevant topic in the longer term (ie. 10+ years from now)... this kind of stuff is fodder for Wikinews, not Wikipedia. -/- Warren 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bschott. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge somewhere if references added before end of AfD, seems like it should be verifiable. JYolkowski // talk
Comment: at least one very reliable reference has been there all along. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball. This article deals with a near miss which has received 'one coverage' as defined in wiki notability criteria in WP:BIO. Without trivilaisation of the incident, there are bound to be near misses because of our very busy airports. Only time will tell if this is a signicant event in aviation history, or the history of the airlines in that, depending review of Boston air traffic controllers' procedures. The incident itself is not notable, but its consequences could be. Ohconfucius 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - We're not Wikinews, and we're not a crystal ball. People aren't going to look back on this incident 10 years from now - it was a near miss, which happens quite often, more often than most people think. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Question: If the article was deleted, would it be suitible for re-creation if at the close of the investigation, changes are made to regulations and/or safety recomendations are made by the NTSB as a result? That would erase the question of noteability. - Blood red sandman 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really. Many other flights have happened that have changed national or international flight rules. A large majority haven't any article on them. There are MANY near misses or 'deals' that occur over a standard year. There is nothing special about this one. In fact, I can note two more where aircraft in the past two years, have had this EXACT incident happen (all commercial airliners, all nose to nose on the runway). In fact I have one where one airliner was landing while another was lining up to take off right at the landing aircraft. Incidents happen. Nothing is notable for this one other than the media decided to make a big deal out of it. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the incident you refer to, the collision avoidance systems worked perfectly as I recall, and the aircraft was able to pull up long before it would have touched down. - Blood red sandman 15:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandman, no. TCAS does not work on the ground, nor would it detect aircraft on the ground, especially since the transponder was not turned on (they normally are only turned on after liftoff). The aircraft landed but was able to stop short of the other aircraft. Please do not make things up. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard reference made by the NTSB to a secondary, less well-known system for ground use, the acronym and name for this escapes me. I was never refering to TCAS - although if it were switched on, as I understand it, (although I'm unsure of this) it can detect aircraft on the ground, but would simply transmit continuous false alarms since what is too close in mid-air is perfectly reasonable on the ground. - Blood red sandman 19:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per Blood red sandman's comments.--Caliga10 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That was a speculative question, not a reason to keep. No such changes have been made. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • response to comment I have, however, listed other reasons to keep, and I think they are what's being refered to. - Blood red sandman 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy, and unconditional delete; Wikinews. Also, original author makes hysterical claims in the article and in his defense for keeping it (before moving to Wikinews, this needs a strong rewrite; "many deaths" speculation in the first sentence is first example). Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, just remember Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss "what could happen" (the "crystal ball" referred to). Media outlets and the general public that do not understand aviation and think this is a catastrophe are to blame. --JStalk 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say I was hysterical, just factoring in all the potential reasons to keep. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do in an AfD nomination? Blood red sandman 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132 was a near-miss that could have resulted in hundreds of deaths. That's hysteria. "Oh my God!" --JStalk 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was simply how it occured to right the article at the time. I do, however, agree that it sounds like hysteria. I will accordingly remove it from the article. Thanks for mentioning it, but do be careful when leaping to conclusions. It can lead to misunderstandings. - Blood red sandman 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the link to this page at the bottom of Tenerife disaster makes the same assertion and should probably be removed from that page (and in fact, I don't see the similarity anyway... Tenerife was due to a failure of communications between the control tower and the pilots, while this incident seems to be purely due to a foul-up in the control tower, i.e. in Tenerife if the control towers instructions had been followed there would have been no accident, while the reverse is true here) ---13.12.254.82 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to nom: As a pilot working on my ATP, to accuse the industry as a whole of 'playing chicken' with lives is absurd, unfounded, and offensive to pilots here, I'm sure. The general media does the same exact thing all the time (I've worked in both fields). This incident was a coordination error, not some yahoo sitting in a control tower going "yeehaw, look what I can do!" Do you have any idea how extensive FAA controller training is? Aviation is an industry that is known for its professionalism, rigorous self-checking, and extremely high 'bar'. But we are all human. I implore you to check your general opinion of aviation, especially when defending a (in my opinion) well-founded and good faith prod that you challenged. --JStalk 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
response my apologies as in to how that sounded - I don't know why I used the words 'playing chicken'. I can only assume I was looking for a more apropriate phrase. And I was not the first to challenge the prod - that was a diferent user, who removed the prod (see talk page). the prod was then replaced, so i stepped in and listed at AfD, as is the norm for a challenged prod, so a discusion can be generated on the merits of the article and a general consensus reached. - Blood red sandman 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. --Jaysweet 21:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've found a second source: this is a month-old ALPA press release describing a "Superior Airmanship Award" for the US Airways captain. It calls it a "very serious incident". Now having two nontrivial sources, the article would probably scrape by a notability guideline if one were available. Melchoir 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; this article is pointless. It is minor news at best. Not for an encyclopedia. TripleH1976 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TripleH. ~ trialsanderrors 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hmmm.... we've reached the end of the discusion, and although delete (which i still apose) is slightly ahead, we don't seem to have reached a clear consensus. What do we do in cases where there is no concensus? - Blood red sandman 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, just how many deletes have to appear in order for the article to go? I mean, in a democracy if one side is even slightly ahead it usually wins. TripleH1976 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would normaly expect it to be deleted too, but I once, when i was even newer than I am now, saw an archived AfD discusion which stated 'The result was no conscensus - but (and I'm kicking myself for this) remember what article it was so I don't know if it was deleted, relisted at AfD, or kept - I guess we will just have to wait and see what the closing admin does. - Blood red sandman 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote where the "majority" opinion gets implemented. The closing admin will carefully read the opinions and evidence presented and make a decision which arguments were more persuasive given wikipedia policy. There are outcomes that are marked "no consensus", in which the default action is to keep the article. ~ trialsanderrors 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would vote to delete only if there is a link in Wikipedia to an outside source to this incident. Possibly, the NTSB article, or notable investigations log, etc.Gary Joseph 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ??? Can you clarify? Usually the inclusion of reliable sources is a reason to keep, not delete. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I struggled with that too, but I think - in fact unless the user says otherwise I'm sure - that the meaning was that if this article was deleted, then some other article should include a link to the an external source to the incident, so that it at least gets a mention on Wikipedia. So far as I see though, there is no suitable article. - Blood red sandman 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see Near miss (safety) and Air safety as possible candidates. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your right - either or both would be suitable. I'm left wondering if that would be a good policy, though - I mean, if something is noteable enough to have an external link in a related article, surely it should have an article of it's own. I can see horrendous edit wars if that were to happen. It's not out of the question, but it would need to be carefuly thought over and carefuly implemented too. - Blood red sandman 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you guys got the idea. I understand some of the issues that would arise from this, but encyclopedias by their nature have gaps. Wikipedia, being able to change instantaneuosly, fills one. But it is just one source, while also being a compendium of knowledge (another gap). Citing outside sources would (sort of) fill that.Gary Joseph 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm teaching an intro to HCI/HF course tomorrow and found this link off of kegworth. I think it's worth the space, but will need to be updated. It is to my understanding a very close and uncommon incursion (not .1 miles, not .5 miles, not 1 miles), and has interesting usability and system implications.
  • Keep As a former pilot, this event is highly unusual. The stastic of 1 incursion per day pointed out above (can't find a ref, but it's probably about right) includes airplanes that are hundreds of meters apart. These aircraft were a few meters apart, vertically, and would have crashed without evasive maneuvers on one pilot's part, which makes the incident relatively unique. Brianski 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- noteworthy Astrotrain 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that by keeping this article it sets a very bad precedent for wikipedia. The 5 pillars of Wikipedia clearly state that this place is not a newspaper; meaning that everything that gets into the news doesn't necessarily require an article. This incident was minor news. It took more then a full year(after the incident occurred) for someone to even write an article on it. If this article is kept, it means that ANYTHING,from a newspaper, one can argue that it belongs here. TripleH1976 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that, for better or worse, that precedent was set a long time ago.  :) I only voted "weak keep" because I do think you have a point in this regard, but Wikipedia already covers many, many less notable events than this. I understand your viewpoint that Wikipedia needs to tighten up and be more encyclopedia-ish, but it's not like this would set a new record for least notable article on Wikipedia. There's no precedents being set here... --Jaysweet 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment sorry to open my mouth yet again, but I think it's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't paper either - Blood red sandman 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Runway incursions of this nature are not "common", its not very often you see over 300 people on a collision course with each other. Had the pilots not noted the other aircraft then we may of had another Tenerife, which I think makes it more than noteworthy. In addition, the fact quite a thorough investigation is taking place asserts the seriousness of the incident. 82.195.109.147, 22:05, 5 September 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - It's these types of exaggerations, like the one above, that I'm afraid will get this article kept. Three hundred people were not on a collision course. Pilots are trained to handle very difficult situations. Do you think only on the ground is where those passengers faced danger? All through out the flight they were(just like all aircrafts in the air as I speak right now) in danger. Turbulence, weather, staying clear of other planes, minor malfunctions. All of that is danger. Do you purpose we make articles on those too? Make articles for every aircraft in serious danger. Traffic congestion is going to become a real big problem in airports around the world; the world isn't getting smaller, so we shouldn't be shocked by these near-misses in the future. Believe it or not, they will be happening. We can't have articles for each one of them. Wikipedia is becoming another newspaper source. TripleH1976 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But what you just wrote is an exaggeration too. The dangerous parts of a flight are taking-off and landing. Planes rarely just fall out of the sky (maybe plane poop). I am not sure this falls under a "current events" category. Besides, you are using the "slippery slope" argument which is justifying current action by some unproved hypothetical. I agree to "keep" or delete only with some limitations. But if one of the pilots got an award from his peers for that, then it must have meant something.(see original vote above)Gary Joseph 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know planes don't just fall out of the sky. However, there is danger while in the air. Mainly from turbulence and bad weather. Many years ago, a Japanese airplane experienced some very turbulence. Enough so to toss around some passengers that weren't seated. My point is that near-accidents shouldn't be sufficient enough for an article. I see Wikipedia has rules, but they don't seem to be reinforced. The criteria for an article seems to be way too flexible around here. TripleH1976 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes, I think I remember the Japanese incident - my only comment at the time was "that's why most regular air travelers keep their seatbelts on when they aren't moving around the plane, even if the little light says you can take them off". In the air, yes, there are a lot of small incidents involving some danger. I myself have been on a plane carrying over 100 people that had to divert to a longer runway after a mid-air brake failure, they even rolled the fire trucks for us and i've been on a CRJ-200 that had an engine seize up shortly before landing, and during final aproach the pilot struggled to maintain control because he payed more attention to trying to restart the engine than anything else. As they take-off and land, that's when the real danger is, because a tiny little thing like that happening then could be disasterous. but they can at least expect to be clear of other aircraft on the ground - unlike in the air, the rules are "one at a time", so it's fairly easy to keep things in check - as soon as theirs a problem on the ground, ATC just says "Stop!" and they all do. The planes should never have been allowed to even get their take-off rolls started. That ATC left them on a collision course is almost unheard of, Tenerife being the obvious exception. A few more seconds, and it would have been too late to stop the plane taking off, and the planes would have collided, killing most or all of 381 people. - Blood red sandman 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep - This article should be kept. All articles should be kept! If there is one person willing to write it and another interested in reading it, then why delete? The only articles which might ever be deleted should be those which are false, and those which distract from another, more correct article on the same topic. I think it is simply absurd that there are people out there who wish to get rid of articles simply because they personally judge them unimportant. If you don't like the article, then don't read it!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 part of a pattern of ongoing hoax vandalism by this user (see Signs 2 (AfD discussion), I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer (AfD discussion), Blair Witch 3: The Prequel (AfD discussion), Speed 3 (AfD discussion), and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afi0956), started up again after the user's last block for hoax article creation expired. I checked the movie database links given in the article. They were both for I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer. Uncle G 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Know Forever What You Did Last Summer[edit]

This movie article was created by a user who has a long history of adding hoax information to Wikipedia. This one is awfully questionable... The title, in quotes, gets one hit on google. The IMDB profile points to a movie of a different title and, well, I can't read the Hebrew interwiki (any Hebrew readers in the house?) This looks extremely suspect. Delete unless sourced. Grandmasterka 20:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hasn't this author posted multiple titles for the alleged next sequel in this series? Haven't they all been, at best, unverifiable? Fan-1967 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education's 2003 "Perfect Storm" of Returning Students with Viruses and Worms[edit]

Page covering an outbreak of students returning to colleges with viruses. Question is, 1) is this a hoax, and 2) if it did happen, is it encyclopedic? —Scott5114↗ 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, old news. If this were current, I'd say take it to Wikinews, but now, so what? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OLD NEWS. Who is going to search for that title. This information and the outbreak of worms is probably in the Blaster article.Trevor 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirect. For practical purposes this means redirect for now, but interested editors are welcome to merge content from the histories as warranted. Xoloz 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kensei Muguruma, Lisa Yadoumaru, Hiyori Sarugaki, Ichinose Maki, Modified Souls (Bleach)[edit]

NN characters and a short character list are all pages created by Bleach fans without really understanding Wikipedia notability policies. These characters have not yet played a part important enough in Bleach to be considered notable. The articles are horrible too, just as a side note. See also: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Another vanity article -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - this character sucks poop. --Nintendude message 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...with no prejudice in the case of Maki. Dekimasu 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Redirect because it really makes more sense than deleting. However, a merge is unnecessary because the important information is already found in the articles these would redirect to. Yes, I like ending sentences with prepositions. Dekimasu 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should any of this be merged into a list of minor characters rather than deleted? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the info at Characters in Bleach series#The Vizard already has most of the necessary info and most of the info in those articles is superfluous and non-notable. However, more info can easily be added to Characters in Bleach series. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Characters in Bleach series per WP:FICT, if there's any information that needs to go in. The section there is pretty good however, and I would not be opposed to just a redirect. ColourBurst 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant info into List of Bleach characters. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 9w6d 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ssmerge and stick a {{fiction}} at the top of the merge point. (Though I don't remember if Smerge is a strong merge or a speedy merge so, I stuck two esses on.) --Kunzite 12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always thought "smerge" was "summary merge", i.e. add essential information to the target article but don't bother including less important details. But that would be pretty appropriate too. — Haeleth Talk 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, smerge means "slight merge" according to the glossary. I thought it was speedy merge myself. ColourBurst 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC*
  • Comment Like Ynhockey said, all of the important info on these characters is already in the Characters in Bleach series article. Putting the Vizard members profiles in the Vizard article could also be a solution.

Keep Bushido Brown 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect, as said above article history of these articles aren't important. All useful info is already on the list of characters article. -- Ned Scott 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally, I'm against the deletion of Hiyori Sarugaki because of her constant interaction with Shinji as well as Ichigo. It is also important to note the way Kubo emphasizes her feelings (her dislike for human and shinigami, as well as hints of her familial affection toward Ichigo). Finestela 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am, too, against the deletion of Hiyori Sarugaki. I kinda view her as an important character in that she's training Ichigo. Simply putting a short biography of her in the Vizards or Characters in Bleach section seems like leaving out an important character to me.Sumhtun 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply she hasn't actually done anything though, and is a recent addition with no major interaction with other characters. It is better to expand her section of the character list, and only give her an actual article once she has proven her importance in the series.
  • Also, since I don't believe I voted yet, Delete, no prejudice against recreation once they've actually DONE SOMETHING. --tjstrf 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: Reply Compare to some of certain members of Gotei 13 (yes, I'm talking about the Lt's of 1st and 2nd, but also various others), Hiyori has already left a greater mark to the story/overall plot. Not to mention the Arrancars. For crying out loud, while I can see why Luppi getting his own page (after all, he did have an impressive show), but Wonderwice?!? Come on!
  • Not To mention Hiyori's got her character feature page already! How's that! :P (ok, you do realize this part is a joke, right?) -- Finestela 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the pages stay. If some of the arrancars have their own pages, why not the vizards too. Don't delete the pages their might be more info later in the manga and anime.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Graham[edit]

This is a non-notable disk jockey. There is only one Google result for "Jeff Graham" "disk jockey" [21]. He fails WP:BIO. Erechtheus 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Mortal Kombat species. (aeropagitica) 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurian (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

All the information for this particular race is covered in List of Mortal Kombat species, this is just adding irrelevant information. This article should be deleted as all relevant information has already been provided elsewhere, and this article is providing nothing that hasn't already been mentioned, except for speculation or assumptions, such as saying 'their two arms are probably stronger than two Shokan arms', and absolutely no information on the page has been sourced. The writer of this page is assuming that every Centaurian in the Mortal Kombat universe has the same powers and abilities as Motaro. The Haunted Angel 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. (aeropagitica) 12:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeBarra Mayo[edit]

[NB nom has been withdrawn in light of subsequent revisions to the article. Tyrenius 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Subject may be notable, but this is clearly a vanity article authored by User:KarateLady. WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographical articles. fbb_fan 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 9w6d 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree with WP:AUTO, and I think this article absolutely must be rewritten by someone with outside perspective. Notability is established with appropriate sources, making this an improper subject for deletion. Erechtheus 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:AUTO isn't sufficient reason to delete the article. Instead, it needs to be cleaned up. -- Whpq 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.-Kmaguir1 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As she has regularly appeared in the media, perhaps you could expand on your statement to give it more credibility. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So have Senate interns [refactored per BLP].NN.-Kmaguir1 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As she has regularly appeared in the media, perhaps you could expand on your statement to give it more credibility. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One point of subject's notability during the 80s in addition to her bodybuilding awards is evidenced by 1986 membership in the Author's Guild, which at the time had strict requirements for membership...members needed at least 3 major publications with credible publishers. None of DeBarra's articles were "self published." I am a researcher who specializes in health and wellness research as well as other areas. Various writers and researchers have profiled DeBarra Mayo. Library or newspaper archives can provide validation. I have done clean up on the article and can do more if needed. I have also created other pages to provide historical reference of the "fitness craze" of the 80s. Thank you. KarateLadyKarateLady 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The implication by the nominator appears to be that you are indeed the subject of the article. WP:AUTO strongly discourages the editing of an article by its subject. Erechtheus 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Dlyons493 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vanity" is not in itself a reason to delete an article. If this is the only objection, then the article should be kept. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am new to Wikipedia and still learning a lot of what is appropriate and what is not. I plan to add many more articles related to health and wellness and I plan to add many more authors and writers who are not yet listed on Wikipedia. I am indeed the author of this article and will be happy to delete or change whatever is needed on this article to conform to the policy. I welcome any other help or comments. I probably went overboard with this article in an attempt to make it factually correct. Thank you for the good input to make it better. KarateLadyKarateLady 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per nom. Vanity is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is notable. I suggest the nom be withdrawn. Tyrenius 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her achievements make her sufficiently notable, and claims seem to be well documented and sourced, but needs a rewrite. I have applied an NPOV template to the page for now. Ohconfucius 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up I've been through the article and cleaned it up for NPOV etc. Still needs some attention. Tyrenius 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a good article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD Withdrawn in light of the improvements to the article; hopefully it will not revert to the vanity piece it was at the time of the nomination. fbb_fan 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seeing that even the nominator has withdrawn. Vanity is not necessarily a reason for deletion if the subject is notable, like this one. RFerreira 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tyrenius, the subject is notable. bbx 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it could use more external links to articles from outside sources exploring her accomplishments in the fitness world. She does appear to be notable, based upon a cursory Web/Amazon.com search. Ruthfulbarbarity 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though note nominator has withrawn), auto doesn't override acknowledged notabilty. Article should be kept if notability can be established and if article is verifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - the keeps were often based around sources being available, but this was negated by evidence questioning the validity of the sources.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley the Republican (2nd)[edit]

No reliables sources and likely not notable. Kotepho 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hehe. Almost all of those "references" point at Shellytherepublican or Shellyuncovered--neither of which would be a reliable source. One of the others points at a post on a Usenet group, and another is Google search results. I'm voting delete on this one, for lack of reliable sources plus all the reasons discussed in the last AfD. ergot 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I dunno. Most of the cited things say "Shelley the Republican says such and such", and I think a link to Shelley the Republican saying such and such is a good source for that... Nick8325 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep- Have yet to see any good reason to delete it. If someone gives me a good one I'll change my vote.

Edit: I think it's notable enough. As far as sources go, it's a summary of what the website is and what it does. It has the primary source, what else does it need? Jaderaid 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The site was notable -- it was a fairly high-trafficked site, and a very interesting social experiment. However, the Internet has a notoriously short attention span, and people seem to have forgotten the blog and moved along. In responce, the articles have lost their previous gleam and have become more and more radical in an effort to lure more people. The experiment has failed, and the site is no longer notable. Platonic Nirvana 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No good reason to delete, faily notable. Jhnphm 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "lack of reliable sources", "fails WP:WEB", and "already deleted by previous AfD" all seem like pretty good reasons to me. ergot 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a mish-mash of fake controvocy combined with barely relevant sources. The subjects of this article do not appear to want to be in Wikipedia anyway, so who are we trying to please by allowing this article to exist? My belief is that a key motivation of STR.com was a colbertesque prank on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) .
Yes, it was. I'm sure that I wasn't the only one who noticed that you are Tristan Shuddery, since you share the same e-mail address. [22] 210.55.101.199 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A slightly bizarre and somewhat ammusing allegation, oh anonymous person. Anyway my vote still stands. For the record I have nothing to do with these racist *tards other than a bizarre interest in the site they have created. Had I attempted a wikipedia prank I would hope that I could have come up with something that isnt a painfully derivitive pastiche of Mr Colbert! As I stated previously I dont think it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrobiosphere[edit]

Neologism. See other related vfds. — Dunc|☺ 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrobotany, Astrobiosphere, Astrometeorology, Astrooceanography, Astrosciences[edit]

Neologism, OR, etc. — Dunc|☺ 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: All neologisms, all WP:NOR violations, all WP:VER violations created by one WP user with an original idea (seen here and here). ... Kenosis 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged several almost idencical AfD's into this one for convenience. Copies of relevant discussions follow. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrometeorology

neologism, OR, etc. Also, This suggests it is long range weather forecasting rather than extra-terrestrial weather studying.— Dunc|☺ 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosciences

This term is a neologism that has no definition or accepted meaning. Violation of WP:OR (it's a made-up word), WP:VER (not verifiable), WP:RS (Source(s) of "term" are not-notable at all), WP:NOT (not a dictionary, especially for proposed neologisms not from reliable source(s)) Kenosis 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. Aguerriero (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Lair Skatepark[edit]

Does not seem notable, and reads like a vanity page. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Crystallina 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A8 as copyvio of company site created less than 48 hours ago. Doesn't appear anywhere close to WP:CORP anyway. --Kinu t/c 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed on request. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrometeorology[edit]

neologism, OR, etc. Also, This suggests it is long range weather forecasting rather than extra-terrestrial weather studying.— Dunc|☺ 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed on request. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrooceanography[edit]

Neologism, NOR, etc— Dunc|☺ 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Declining Importance of Meta Keywords, Description Tags, Alt Tags, etc., Content resource[edit]

Unencyclopedic, OR, essay. Originally contained ad link, which was removed by author along with prod tag. -- Merope 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. May just be unsourced rather than OR, but definitely an encyclopedia essay. Kickaha Ota 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay, not encyclopedic, possibly violates WP:NOR. --Kinu t/c 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An essay that has not fitting for a encyclopedia. Some P. Erson 21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and content resource are both adverts for the author's web site. The same author has posted them to several self-submission web sites all over the World Wide Web, such as here. Unsurprisingly, the web site is another "search engine optimizer". There's no point in trying to turn this into an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Uncle G's comments, I have added Content resource to the deletion discussion. -- Merope 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This was a poor attempt to spam for contentresourcecenter.com, and once those links are removed, what's left is OR essay not worth keeping. Fan-1967 12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an essay about some SEO stuff or something. Contributes nothing to the discussion about HTML standards and metadata, contributes unsourced and hard to verify "fancruft", if you can borrow the term, on discussion of SEO. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The JPStalk to me 14:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army of prawns[edit]

No real claim to fame other that being associated with Silverchair. They had no major successes, only a few live performances, and it isn't even clear if they've broken up or not. This is not notable.--Esprit15d 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:BAND. The band of a younger brother of a singer in a real band is a long stretch to notability. --Daniel Olsen 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tebow[edit]

Re-nominating for deletion. The guy's a bench warmer, a freshman who hasn't started a game, and isn't going to, any time in the future. So let's list all 100 players on all 100+ Division I-A schools. And why stop there, let's go all the way to the NAIA. Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tebow. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable.-Kmaguir1 21:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Keep' per arguments below.-Kmaguir1 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps speedily as a WP:POINT violation or per Speedy Keep A5. This nomiantion closed consensus keep less than a week ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. How many times do we have to go through this? There are lesser important people who have been featured articles (KaDee Strickland, anyone?). Do a web search for Tim Tebow. I got over 88,000 returns. That would indicate people are keeping track of him. As to the fact he is a bench warmer—and thus there are "more important" articles to be make first—make them. There are articles to 2001-2006 football seasons for non-BCS-eligible teams while major college programs don't even have main football articles up. Should we delete the 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team article since there isn't an Alabama Crimson Tide football or Tennessee Volunteers football article up? --WTStoffs 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why doesn't media hype confer notability? Plenty of people have heard of him and could conceivably come here looking for information about him. Heck, we have articles on current high school basketball players (O.J. Mayo)!
  • STRONG KEEP - who said tebow hasn't nor will he start in the near future? they were just talking on college gameday about the controversy on whether it will be leak or tebow. everyone says he'll play early, neither as the starter, but nor in a two qb system, but he will get playing time, he will probably be a heisman candidate as a senior, so wikipedia.com can say that they were there from the beginning, keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.172.85 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 August 2006
  • I think you just have to trust that the sports people here know what they're doing and know how to judge these articles. You don't have to appeal to a slippery slope argument -- no one has any plans to make articles on every college football player, let alone NAIA players! Zagalejo 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalbakken (station)[edit]

Not notable, not linked to one of the other stations--entirely minutiae— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llanelli AAC[edit]

Delete sadly I don't see any evidence of notability Charlesknight 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gompers commercials[edit]

nn series of products known only to a small group at a small period of time. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but unverifiable. Rohirok 01:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Backus Goes Bowling[edit]

WP:V, possibly WP:HOAX. Nothing at IMDB and no google hits for title. Scottmsg 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (band)[edit]

I can find no reference to this band on the internet (see here for an example search.) It's been suggested on the article's talk page and the help desk that this could be a hoax, but I just think it's a not very notable band. They don't seem to have released anything or toured beyond their local area so unfortunately I don't think it really belongs here, based on what I've seen so far.--Cherry blossom tree 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless verified and notability concerns covered. Kukini 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a disgrace to WP. Just read it, it's one long joke. If the group exists then it's not notable - Adrian Pingstone 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem a bit far fetched but I was at Reed's School and Titan certainly existed and did tour locally as well as winning the TSB rock competion. No hoax. ""keep"" Osteopath 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)osteopath[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony McAuliffe. BaseballBaby 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General McAuliffe[edit]

Two main reasons to delete this disambiguation page.

1) The page has two links, one is empty with no corresponding article. So, really there is no ambiguity as to who is being refered to under the name of 'General McAuliffe'.

2) The 2nd person referenced in this article (General Arthur McAuliff) may not exist. There are some Internet resources that attribute quotes from this second listed General, but there is also evidence they are actual attributable to the first General.

Bottom line: The second General probably does not exist as a notable historical figure. -- Rorndoff 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect until such a time as disambiguation is needed. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Redirect the article, but AfD is not the place to discuss this. Try RfD instead. ColourBurst 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. When I disambiguated General McAuliffe, Arthur McAuliff had his own article which was then deleted. Art LaPella 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per Zoe. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moved to user space. Thryduulf 08:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Manifesto[edit]

I don't know what the copyright status of this document is, but if it's acceptable, it should be Transwikied to Wikisource, otherwise deleted as a copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only recently begun this page. My intent would be to make it a discussion about the Manifesto like the Communist Manifesto or articles on other political manifestos. I hope I will be given more of a chance to work on it before it is deleted. It is an important topic which should have a wikipedia page. Elizmr 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hy-Tek Finishing-Plastic Decorators[edit]

Stormlover1974 (talk · contribs) has just created five iterations of this article (continued after warnings), so suspecting spam, I googled "Hy-Tek Finishing"; 89 hits. And it seems I was right. Totally NN per WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this spam advert and all the redirects, it is a small company of less than 50 employees, completely non-notable. --RMHED 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LEAVE IT Why does it matter if it is a small company. This company is a pioneer in many aspects of the plastics industry and has refined many processes used today..— Preceding unsigned comment added by JRBork (talk • contribs) (Note: Second edit from new user)
  • Delete Zero nexis hits for "Hy-Tek Finishing". The guy who sells falafel from a stand outside my office building has more hits than that. I'm not joking, by the way. Uucp 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with a nuke then salt the earth with the ashes. This is completely spamvertisment, fails WP:V, and smacks of a biased point of view --Brian (How am I doing?) 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Of the 89 Google hits mentioned by nom, only 14 are unique. ... discospinster talk 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LEAVE IT if the guy gets more attention he'll get more hits. Plus, whats thats difference of his company being on here versus an Article about the "Lake Express" Thats a business. Why isn't that advertising? Or McDonalds? Just because its a large corporation? Thats unfair and called Discrimination. Maybe if you had your own company you would understand. — Possible single purpose account: JRBork (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ligon Duncan[edit]

While a very able preacher, nn--the stuff outside of the denomination is not determinative enough.

  • Weak keep - Nine nexis hits, but six of them are just notices of his upcoming preaching at some church, listed alongside dozens of other local preachers in a routine scheduling notice akin to movie times. There is one reference to his participating in a conference, again alongside a list of other names without any notable detail provided. However, nexis found two editions of his Who's Who listing. This listing provides my reason for a 'weak keep' rather than full delete. Who's Who lists about twenty publications, ten board memberships, plus some awards and society memberships. I think if somebody were to flesh all of this out, it would amount to notability. Uucp 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - he is the head of several fairly substantial church organizations - they don't seem to be small johnny-come-lately groups. --Brianyoumans 23:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not. But still, it seems fluff--I know the church, have attended it. It's great. But a wikipedia article for the pastor? I don't think so.-Kmaguir1 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzelle2[edit]

A google search on the name "Pizzelle2" only pulls up 1,500 hits. Now running down a search that excludes forums, blogs, and journals (which are NOT acceptable as reliable sources by wikipedia) and also excludes recipes for pizzelle, and pizzelle makers...and we come up with 34 unique hits (many of which are from youtube itself).

The only articles/acceptable sources I could find were the NYT and a newsvine/online paper article (a weak source on it's own) which is a copy of the first article anyway. The NYT article borders on being trivial because it mainly talks about YouTube and other people's reactions (like "James") than Pizzelle2 herself. She has a sentance or two out of the article. The Teen People article is not referenced in the article and none of the webpages I can find online refer to the article. The Teen People website does not list any information about the article (though a library search may be done tomarrow as I have a few books to return)

I do not believe she meets WP:BIO because there are no other sources and notability/verifibility is not met, the article isn't up to wikipedia standards. It fails WP:V. Brian (How am I doing?) 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- page appears to be a vanity page. --ChinaNailStorm 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Arual 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This person is not really all that notable. Other people from Youtube with Wiki articles are very well known on Youtube and, to a degree, outside of it. This person isn't in the same league with a Brookers or a Geriatric1927, among others, really. Dave 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not nearly enough sourcing to meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Mulroney[edit]

Being the the daughter of a fairly famous man, marrying the son of a fairly famous man, and having a third fairly famous man sing at the wedding does not a notable person make. Victoriagirl 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I agree with Victoriagirl's implication that these qualifications ought not make somebody notable, it is manifestly true that in some cases, fame suffices to make one notable, and famous relations and big parties sometimes equate to fame itself. Nexis shows 60 hits for Ms. Mulroney in the last two years. Most of these are in Canadian newspapers, but she appeared in WWD and the Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), among other U.S. publications, as well. Uucp 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Acknowledging your point, I can't help but note that Caroline Mulroney's name is nearly always followed by "daughter of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney" (or a similar description) - an indication to these eyes that she has no name recognition. Victoriagirl 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only claim to fame is having been the subject of a satirical ad - how many of those are there worldwide? Dlyons493 Talk 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "First children" are inherently notable, like Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins.
comment: With respect, I would argue culture plays a great role in this discussion, the terms "first children", "first lady", "first family" being foreign. I note that none of the current Prime Minister's children have entries in Wiki, nor do any of the previous Prime Minister. One of Caroline Mulroney's siblings, Ben Mulroney, has an article on Wiki, but then he's host of Canadian Idol. Her two other siblings are absent from Wiki.Victoriagirl 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: And so I add my vote. Victoriagirl 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Relationship to notable person not inherently notable. "First Lady", "daughter", "son", "uncle", "pet", etc., is not a Canadianism. Agent 86 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predictwallstreet[edit]

An article that was created just to spread POV; not even an article. Just an essay. (|-- UlTiMuS 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - an essay, also fails WP:WEB. --Daniel Olsen 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks to me like it was created to promote the website. NawlinWiki 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it hard to take this seriously. It seems of little use & self promoting. --Nigel (Talk) 12:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all articles. (aeropagitica) 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Buyer's Bill of Rights[edit]

How to become a car dealer, Process of licensing to become a car dealer, Become a car dealer, Car buyer bill of rights, Contract cancellation option, Mandatory dealer education, Car dealer education, Car dealer school, Autobroker, Dealer class, Dealer school, Cooling off period, Contract cancellation option notice

A large collection of articles, all with pretty much the same content, all created by User:Tristarmotors, and all containg multiple links to websites owned by Tristar Motors. All are specifically geared toward selling educational services to California auto dealers. Violates WP:SPAM, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and general annoyingness by creating so many copies of the stuff. Fan-1967 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kill, kill, kill. --Daniel Olsen 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Merge - a few of these might have useful content about the process of car buying that could be merged into other articles. One or two might even be useful, if rewritten - Cooling off period, for instance - if we don't already have an article that covers the area. Most of the dealer ones - Become a car dealer, Mandatory dealer education, etc - could just go, unless some of it can be merged into a general article on car dealers. --Brianyoumans 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What little salvageable content there might be is all quite specific to the intricacies of California commercial law, so I am not sure how useful it would be in an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience. Fan-1967 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm hard pressed to think of a policy that isn't breached by at least one of these. Gwernol 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all this is a bit rediculous. All of them are contextless nonsense spam, and probably all copyvios. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the purpose of our postings is to promote consumer awareness and dealer education in a free of charge site this law affects the sale of every used car in california and must be learned in detail by 15,000 dealers and 100,000 salespeople the site http://www.carbuyerbillofrights.com is a free site of our creation we are licensed by the ca dmv and no copyright infringement exists we hold the copyright on our material tristar motors llc
  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to promote your web site, whether it is advertising supported, subscription driven or completely free. Gwernol 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not a free web host. ... discospinster talk 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brianyoumans. The multiple spam pages do nothing but take up disk space. WP:NOT a how-to manual. There may be something salvageable in there, though. Ohconfucius 05:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement ReverendG 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. All the pages are useless spam. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge All into one article. Although spam and possible copyvio in present state, i don't think this is unsalvageable. - Blood red sandman 12:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. We need to complement WP:NOT with "WP:NO.JUSTNO." =) Even if there's something salvageable, it's probably better off completely rewritten and sourced. These are just a big mess. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is TriStarMotors. I was trying to add alot of information that I have on my websites to Wikipedia.

Apparenetly I ahve angered alot of you. I will try to conform to your likings. Not all of us use wikipedia all day. I was not trying to spam thank you. Please email me tristarmotors@gmail.com and help me get this info up there!

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ROH World Tag Team Championship defenses[edit]

Useless trivia. RobJ1981 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Kappa 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as useless listcruft. Title defenses are not notable. TJ Spyke 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete See above comment. Deputy Marshall 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ROH Pure Championship defenses[edit]

Useless trivia RobJ1981

  • Delete, useless listcruft. TJ Spyke 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless and unmaintainable- merge relevant matches into the articles on the wrestlers involved. Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per voters. Renosecond 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More or less listcruft.Deputy Marshall 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless moved to another page this information is usefull.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 = KEEP. -Doc 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Clearing House[edit]

First Deletion Reason – violates WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria, because the ICH is not the subject of “multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” In addition, the ICH does not meet WP:WEB criterion of mention in “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations” (emphasis added). Reliable here is defined under WP:RS, which does not include blogs and other sources without editorial oversight. Nor does the article provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section, as is required under WP:WEB. In all, there are only 416 hits for the phrase (“Information Clearing House” and “World News Daily”) with blogs included. By comparison, the completely non-notable jackass “Morton Devonshire” gets 1170 hits, and I wouldn’t start an article on that joker if my life depended on it. Morton devonshire 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? 416 hits? Strange, i got 954 000 hits. Or 505 000 hits, if you try another way.--Striver 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the argument. It fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria. If you don't think I've quoted the policy word for word, take a look yourself. Morton devonshire 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Craig Roberts [24] writes for ICH. That should settle notability. --Striver 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On Alexa, I get a rank of 12,075 - seems pretty popular. --Brianyoumans 04:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources range from major Us newspapers websites - national and regional, international newspapers websites like The Independant, Haaretz, Toronto Star. I live in Canada, I read international news from various sources and I can tell you ICH is what is says it is. Some right-wing extremists / neo-con fascists might not like that this site is one of the few news sources that brings an alternative to the war cheerleaders that dominate the US news space, but we can't expect them to be fair, as they support an illegal regime who stole two national elections. — Possible single purpose account: 70.55.61.212 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete - "Seems pretty popular" does not address the valid issues raised by the nom. The 954,000 number above is not selective for this site: it is a return on every mention of a clearing house of any kind, not the one referring to World News Daily. The 400+ hits is more accurate, and we don't need to promote another news source that does not meet WP:RS. Sandy 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"InformationClearingHouse.info" gives 441 000 hits. Mortons search is quite arbitrary.--Striver 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the criteria rather than your personal feelings. Morton devonshire 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been addressed by Striver: Paul Craig Roberts [25] writes for ICH. The source is also not less reliable than other sources. Your emphasising "reliable" in the policy excerpt is not what I call proof, and the burden is on you I'm afraid. The Google hits you report are basically made up. Also your serial and POV candidatures for deletion (which are also largely absurd and unsuccessful, and therefore time wasting) diminish the credibility of any others. [26] [27] [28] PizzaMargherita 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB criteria focuses on the mention of the site in question in reliable mainstream sources -- that's what establishes its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, not whether the site itself is reliable. Please look at WP:WEB for further clarification. Ad hominem is irrelevant. Morton devonshire 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep: From Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, to Paul Craig Roberts, what more do you want? Google search for information clearing house gives the site in the two first hits and produces thousands of other links.— Possible single purpose account: 128.110.251.138 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep : The site is a lving legend , This is not a debate it is a political battle , Freedom of speech must be maintained and removing ICH would surely be followed by an attempt to remove LGF. The site is worthy of its place on Wikepedia amd this pathatic debate should not have even began. I wonder which little neocon came up with this bright idea to restrict information that they would rather others did not know. The site is up their with the best, its sources , contributers and reputation is second to none ... can we stop this nonsense http://terrorism-news.blogspot.com/ — Possible single purpose account: 82.16.235.194 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep: This site aggregates articles of a particular philosophical position and is extremely valuable. If you wish to question the validity of the articles, I assume you intend to treat Fox News in a similar fashion? I'm surprised and concerned that consideration would be given to it's removal - it's one of only three sources that I rely on daily for news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep: I suspect the reason why some want the ICH entry deleted is because it provides an antidote to the deluge of propaganda we are fed every day, and therefore jars with their preferences. There are many original articles posted to ICH as first, or first equal, publisher and therefore it is worthy of its modest entry. If ICH goes then so should Alternet, Indymedia, Aljazeerah.info, and all the rest. Wikipedia has bigger problems than this issue, especially the tendentious character of many articles on controversial topics. On Google with this query, which excludes the site itself: -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House” Results 361 - 370 of about 911,000 for -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House”. (0.26 seconds) Morton Devonshire is a Jackass by his own words. — Possible single purpose account: 203.110.29.3 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • 'Keep'. It is a far more reliable source of world information than any other I have found on the net. It is a true antidote for the corporate media which tends to publish mostly government approved propaganda. If the NYT or WP or Fox rate an entry (and they fail every criteria for puplishing "verified" information) then Information Clearing House must have its entry retained. The fact that Information Clearing House has an entry is not an endorsment of its publishing philosophy. It is worth pointing out to the geniuses at Wiki that "verifiability" implies a statement of truth not that the statement comes from a "reliable source" even reliabe sources have been known to mislead. Learn your Latin. I would also point out that the reasons given for deletion are bogus. Steve Lane 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Steve Lane — Possible single purpose account: Steve Lane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep: Who needs YOUR web rules? The original anarchy of the internet is the best illustration of a free market in action. Markets are inevitably self-organizing to the best interest of participants, provided state control and corporate-backed state regulation/manipulation don't interfere (Wikipedia is a prime example). Those who ask that ICH or any other web page conform to the standard seek just such control and manipulation. Freedom is present when one is free to say no. The free market will determine if ICH is relevant, not some geek-speak defined standard. Apparently, some among us can handle "free-markets", just not ones that involve the free exchange of ideas. Chalk it up another effort by the stato-cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP: Who made you the censors of what any one of us reads? ICH provides a valuable source of information that is not widely available thru the mainstream media. I for one would much rather receive my daily news summary from ICH than from MSNBC, FOX, or any of the other biased media sources. Whether or not you agree with the content or the opinions of the contributors, ICH has the right under the constitution of this country to express their opinions and those of their contributors. This is what its all about!!! Thanks, Larry Hearold (lhearold@micro-consultants.com). — Possible single purpose account: 151.203.197.188 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. This site is not sufficiently notable, and the article lacks independent, reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google site:informationclearinghouse.info returns 13 700 hits. U236 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: U236 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • KEEP: We live in a highly polarized world where commercial media is largely no longer used to educate and report, but instead targeted to form opinion and guide the reader toward the desired result. Corporate media has uncritically helped the current US government spread misinformation about Iraq in order to get the desired result of war backed by the American people. Corporate Media is largely responsible for misleading the populance as well as lawmakers, and therefore the statement “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles,... television documentaries,...” is an oxymoron in itself. Corporate Media is the modern State Propaganda tool. ICH uses news sources that include foreign media as well as providing original editorial content. It is a legitimate form of media and should therefore be kept. Jared Kenwell (jkenwell@telus.net) — Possible single purpose account: 198.166.16.87 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. Not verifiably notable; lacks credible references. (Closing admin: Please watch for socks.) -AED 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see why ICH shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to translate the original complaint into simple English for me. Is it a question of whether ICH presents "reliable" or "verifiable" information? I don't read the mainstream press or watch TV news because I don't trust the mass media to give me an honest report of what's going on in the world. Instead I look through the offerings at ICH and several other sites each day and click on the links that interest me. Some are news items and some are opinion pieces. IMO, the news articles often have an implied pov, while most opinion pieces include factual information to support their views. I'm old enough to distinguish between fact and opinion, and between one person's alleged facts and those which can be substantiated. What I'm saying is that I feel ICH serves a valuable service to the community and I don't automatically agree with everything I see there. Manjusri053 05:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Manjusri053 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • EXCUSE ME! Someone around here is being dishonest, saying that my account is "single purpose" and I'm a new participant who's "made little or no other contributions outside this topic." I opened this accoount last November after I forgot my previous account name, and anyone can see that I participated in the editing or discussion of other pages prior to this one. I would appreciate it if the person who slandered me this way would remove their disparaging notations. Thank you. Manjusri053 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag doesn't say you are new. It says you have made little or no contributions outside this topic. You have 12 edits in 10 months. That is "little or no contributions." There is no slander and there is nothing wrong with having low edit counts. Just that for assessing consensus of the community, closing admins can discount non-established users when determining consensus. --Tbeatty 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mostly agree with Manjusri053. The template is ill-conceived and is anyway incorrectly used in many occasions in this page. My understanding is that SPA means that the account has been created on purpose in order to vote for this AfD, i.e. the template is meant to warn that somebody might be creating SPAs specifically to "vote" more than once in this article, which is clearly not the case in many cases. I trust the judgment of the closing admin who will unfortunately have to check each claimed SPA. PizzaMargherita 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the description already offers a reasonable disclaimer; at this point, it should be for the reader to decide what is "reliable." To censor this is to play politics and that would make Wikipedia, itself, unreliable. 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Taliot — Possible single purpose account: Taliot (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Keep Information Clearing House is a better source of information than most of the 'mainstream' drivel that is fed to us a news. I don't even agree with everything I read on it and I often end up doing a wider search on topics which I find particularly interesting. I am not surprised that someone out there is trying to get it kicked off wikipedia but I don't think it is wikipedia's role to act as a censor every time someone reads something they disagree with.Puffinbirds 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Puffinbirds (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep: As mentioned before "reliability" is not guaranteed ... even by NYT (remember Judith Miller's story about WMD in Iraq!). This article fits perfectly well in the context of alternate media. By definition, alternate media does not aim for popularity like the mainstream media which rely on advertisement revenue and have to be "popular". IMHO, this site provides one type of viewpoint and I find it valuable. The article seems to be neutral in mentioning that it has leftist slant. So visitors have been warned about the orientation. Viplav 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Viplav (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep: Information Clearing house serves the twin functions of publishing articles by such notables as Robert Fisk, and preserving otherwise short-lived (rotated out) news items from other news sources. Its also notable for presenting views froma wide range of different countries. Its clearly a notable site. As others have already said, one wonders whether the RFD is actually about notability or is in fact about the content. Keep political deletion of opposing viewpoints out of Wikipedia. --Nantonos 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) contribs[reply]


KEEP Is this a joke? According to the WP:NOT page — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. 

 1.4  Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 1.6  Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site.
 1.8  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Also:

What your user page is not


Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see User page help.

And yet this page is allowed? The cheek!
Check out the list of friends in connection to this "discussion".


Regards the deletion process

Abuse of deletion process


...

XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.

The article on ICH is a concise summary of the site. According to alexa, the site has about 1/10th to 1/20th the reach of a major "left leaning" paper like The Guardian. ICH is however more popular than the notable climate site Realclimate and (interestingly) about 1/3rd as popular as The Whitehouse. It has a similar reach to Znet a website of comparable political orientation. Google indicates that 7,340 sites link to ICH, although Amazon.com suggests 4165

A search at Amazon.com reveals that 40 recent books make reference to ICH, suggesting that it serves as a public searchable archive for articles, pictures and pdf files. This fact suggests it is a noteworthy site, at least for authors of popular history or opinion. Unlike Realclimate, which has been noticed by scholarly sources such as Nature ICH has not had similar recognition and is generally (like wikipedia) a tertiary source.
And yes, I may be a user who has made little or no other contributions outside this topic... I'm not white-anting the site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP This is a useful source of mainstream news articles and leftist comment that gives a useful slant not found elsewhere - helps me keep an open mind on the big events that governments and big media spin in their own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP The ICH website has been destroyed numerous times by politically motivated crackers full of hate. This attack on ICH in wikipedia is probably just one more part of the actions targetting such sites and people who run them and contribute to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


KEEP: What ostensibly validates existence at Wikipedia is "reliable published works" in newspapers, etc. There is an article in today's ICH, http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?optionfiltered=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=135 which explores the removal of a story from the NYT website, available in the UK, as it is in the U.S. The story is removed only to UK readers. In addition, "The Paper of Record" was not even delivered to the UK, yet the story that was blocked was printed by other papers that depend on "reliable published works." The NYT continues to sully its supposed reputation by this blatant censorship. Why on earth would Wikipedia want to follow that path and call it 'upstanding'? Is ICH to be censored because they, somehow, do not follow the shameful and unreliable paths that are taken by too many other "reliable published works"? This self-serving phrase is like a well-known other: "All the News That's Fit to Print." Which is to say, neither of these phrases are accurate or truthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP It strikes me as unreal that this is even considered for deletion. Ryz 10:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just more conspiracy theory cruftiness.--MONGO 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ICH has an unbiased mechanism for posting comments. And mis-representations which rarely happen are pointed out in the comments by the huge audience it has. ICH actively informs and retracts any misrepresentations if they occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.127.6 (talk • contribs)

Author of "Is this a Joke" , 203.164.7.222: I have made changes to the article in question. The initial complaint featured the issues notablility and reliability. I really don't see how notability can be a problem.

"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." WP:WEB

I think the 40 citations in books distributed by Amazon covers that. Yes it links to "conspiracy theory cruftiness" administrator MONGO, but many articles are sourced from the mainstream press. Presumably, without reading, these books are all crufty by association. Just because a theory/opinion is fringe or not mainstream does not defacto make it wrong - only unpleasant, disturbing or distasteful... and maybe later, wrong. It took a long time to accept the loony idea of continental drift. If ICH is considered an unreliable third source what hope wikipedia? See also the talk page for the ICH entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia for sites that are, in my opinion, far less worthy than ICH; examples: Suprnova.org and The Register. If ICH's page should go for the reasons initially claimed then plenty more should too. Further, I find it curious that critics of ICH want to have the page removed. I note that people who don't like The Register (and there's a lot of them) are not calling for the deletion of El Reg's (?) page; rather they call for the page to be edited to have a critical rather than neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep At the very least ICH will have significant historical value. ICH is one of my most trusted sources of information. It is more reliable than the Main Stream Media at this time, therefore if it is removed, then everything from Fox News (Faux News) and the networks should be eliminated as well. Mark Rehl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs)

Keep I am a retired university professor, and my daily sources of national and international news are NPR, the International Herald Tribune, ICH and Truthout (an online source of articles, similar to ICH). Although ICH occasionally has links to liberal polemics (which I ignore), its great value to me is found in news stories and analyses of world events from a wide variety of journalistic sources such as AP, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Guardian, Asia Times, etc. Joseph Martos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephmartos (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Josephmartos (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep ICH is much more reliable and better news source then FOX News, which is listed on Wikipedia, so if you are not deleting FOX then you must keep ICH. Adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep Let's keep politics out of Wikipedia. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.228.120 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 72.73.228.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Delete We should not be discussing the merits of ICH per se, but the merits of the Wikipedia Article. The wikipedia article is far from neutral, listing only the merits of ICH, and none of the criticism. The Wikipedia article on ICH is also in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" with an overly extensive list of media links at the end of the article. Sort of like a "hah see, these are our sources, we are legit."12.108.61.66 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— 12.108.61.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep If there's an NPOV problem with the article it can be hashed out in discussions and fixed. I fail to see why ICH should be deleted altogether - sounds a little fishy... AND - is wikipedia going to get rid of all the websites that are less known than ICH? GNN.tv has a page, stormfront.org has a page, infowars.com has a page, alternet.org has a page.. etc. etc. Persona o 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Persona o (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

    • Comment Anon IP adress removed the SPA tag, resigned the comment as anon IP and then User:Persona o resigned it again as Persona o. Not sure why. Readding the SPA tag.

Keep As a journalist, I use ICH almost every day to find interesting, provocative and relevant facts, information and perspectives. All readers of Wikipedia should have the opportunity to learn about ICH. I do not agree with every article that ICH publishes, but I can still recognize that it is a really important information service. Keeping a Wikipedia article about ICH does not introduce "politics" into Wikipedia -- but deleting an article about ICH certainly would. Pmontague 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Pmontague (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep - In my reading, ICH meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and reliability, certainly as much as or more so than many main stream media outlets. Is the political slant of ICH the real issue for those wanting deletion? I note that Wikipedia articles exist for NewsMax and WorldNetDaily which are NOT proposed for deletion (nor should they be). Therefore the attempt to delete the article on ICH may be a politically motivated misuse of the deletion process. --Nodal Plane 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nodal Plane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]


Keep "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell. And a revolutionary act needs to be into Wikipedia. Stop the censure by criminal neo cons --Neymare 17:56, 31 August 2006 (From France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Keep - encyclopaedia worth --217.83.122.92 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 217.83.122.92 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Wikipedia is no place for a revolution, nor (I realize now) is it a place for deleting viewpoints we don't agree with. I retract my previous opinion of delete in favor of Keep, but edit to better reflect the neutrality standards of Wikipedia12.108.61.66 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 12.108.61.66 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Delete - per nom. Also note the following entry on the website: "Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views." which links to this page. Nice, eh? Crockspot 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have provided references for orignial articles created by multiple notable persons (notable enough to have their own article) for this specific site. This should render void all above claims of non-notability.--Striver 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's not what the nomination is about. It's about the notability of the site, not people mentioned on the site. Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT Morton devonshire 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your interpretation, but in either case, i have added external sites linking to it, like Counterpunch and CSM.--Striver 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, not Prisonplanet.com? Morton devonshire 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that. Didn't stumble on any links on my google search. --Striver 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeida isn't a reliable source for notability. My own opnion (which is about as valuable as Wikipedia's) is that they would fail the objective notability test as I don't see many awards or reviews of their authored works that are relevant to ICH. Whether they would survive an AfD popularity test is a different quesiton. As you see here, we have a lot of motivated one time accounts. For example, Roberts is notable in his own right but his sole contributions to ICH do not necessarily make them notable (ICH carrying articles that are published elsewhere does not make ICH notable). --Tbeatty 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Science Monitor CounterPunch are very notable in themselves, they have nothing to do with wikipedia. And George Galloway, Ray McGovern and John Pilger also very notable on their own. --Striver 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Christian Science Monitor hyperlink mentioned, and it says nothing about ICH. Morton devonshire 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. --Striver 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I encourage everyone to have a look. Morton devonshire 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spot it either. There is a link to an article on ICH but no actual information about the site. Is the link what we should consider a "non-trivial published work" about the site? The site does not appear to be the subject of the article at all. WP:WEB explicitly says trivial coverage such as reporting the internet address do no impart notability. Weregerbil 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it to reflect that. --Striver 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded trivial coverage still doesn't bring it towards WP:WEB. Weregerbil 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if i also could pretend that it was the single claim of notability the article makes. In any case WP:WEB is just a guidline.--Striver 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to pretend anything. Let's discuss it directly without pretending! Does the article pass WP:WEB? Weregerbil 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that it does not in the current form, but it irrelevant to the afd, since it is a mere guidling, intended to help, and not a wikipedia policy. A wikipedia policy would for example be Notability, and this site hosts original material from multiple Notable persons. And that is enough in my view, and the view of the people voting "keep" --Striver 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you. Notability guidelines for web sites are irrelevant when notability of web sites is discussed?? Weregerbil 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, poor wording, i meant "not critical". --Striver 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Look at all the sockpuppetry! Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are technically called meatpuppets. But it is pretty amazing. I think half of them think we are voting to remove ICH from the Web. --Tbeatty 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serious editorial content. Looks fine to me. Yakuman 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New user

Keep - There is no coherent case against the retention of ICH in Wikipedia. The charges contained in the first entry above and several supporting entries are without any credible foundation in fact. The supporting arguments are spurious for they rely entirely on the unsound presuppositions contained in the original indictment - ie. the first entry. On its face, ICH meets the criteria cited in the original charge -WP:WEB, WP:NOT and WP:RS. This case should be closed as it has no merit, whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by alchemistoxford (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - The site is non-trivial and deserves a page. Nunquam Dormio 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable, and the nomination seems motivated by political disagreement with its content. If that were a valid criteria for deletion, most of Wikipedia would cease to exist. Redxiv 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Some external conspiracy theory sites and opinion pieces appear to have links to the site but a link doesn't constitute being the subject of multiple non-trivial independent published works. Weregerbil 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mirror Vax 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Charles Matthews 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user is an ArbCom member. --Striver 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep--Suleyman Habeeb 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even if the outcome of this discussion is keep, this article needs a complete overhall - it now reads like an advertisement at best. GabrielF 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jayjg. Evolver of Borg 08:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google counts 7,340 sites above the PR 3 threshold linking to ICH. Among the first 200 entries I checked cursorily there wasn't a single one that struck me as noteworthy, just minor blogs and conspiracy/opinion sites. The nom is correct about ICH not meeting WP:WEBs requirements. ICH is a "one man effort" indeed and needs more time to get noteworthy. btw: ICH means "I" and "ego" in German... :-) --tickle me 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nypost.com give 21 100 hits. 1/3 of the New York Post is more than enough. --Striver 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another notable original writer added: Wayne Madsen--Striver 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provides valuable perspective on the Far Right. StaticElectric 20:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWL Hardcore Championship and BWL Cruiserweight Championship[edit]

Just one look at the picture on the page will tell you this fails all notability standards. Google agrees. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 don't think there's much point relisting this to get more discussion. - Richardcavell 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert J. Franzen[edit]

Non-notatble independant candidate who lost with 1.6% of the vote in the only election he ever ran in.--Tdl1060 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was duplicate nomination, discussion's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Holden, 1st Baron Holden. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Holden, 3rd Baron Holden[edit]

Obscure, unverified biography. Pet project of User:Brian_Holden, which points also towards vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquacryography[edit]

Neologism to describe artistic technique of author. Fails WP:VAIN. Google turns up three hits for "aquacryography", all of which are linked to the author. -- Merope 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Scarlett[edit]

proposed deletion of non notable contestant designer who was eliminated in Project Runway. Alexa score of 534,900, linked to by 16 sites. Scores 19200 Ghits of which 637 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are Blog entries discussing him, some others where PR is the primary subject of the article. Ohconfucius 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. Jdclevenger 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim seems to be that unless you have notability outside of a Reality TV series, you are not entitiled to space in Wikipedia (space being such an increadably precious commodity within Wikipedia. Oh wait it isn't, is it?). By this logic, all Wikipedia pages devoted to fictional characters should be marked for deletion. After all, a fictional character's notability is almost by defintion a construct of the fiction in which he or she occurs. For example, Col. Jack O'Neill has a very nice article despite the fact that he is a character on Stargate / SG-1. Presumably, his notabilty is solely a function of the movie and the TV show and all the web references about him will be in the same contexts. Jack O'Neill will never write a book or run for president or do anything else notable, other than be a character of fiction. The contestants on a Reality TV show occupy an interesting niche. There notablity may be nothing more than that given by the show on which they appear. But if being a character on SG-1 is sufficent for notablity for Jack O'Neill, then it strikes me that it is sufficent for Kayne Gillaspie, Keith Michael, Bradley Baumkirchner, and all the rest. Jdclevenger 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A follow-up to my note above. One might argue that as main character on a series that has run for 10 years, Jack O'Neill has acheived some kind of notableness outside the context of the show. If so, one would still be hard pressed to justify the pages of Mr. and Mrs. Stoppable or Josh Mankey. These may not ring any bells for those not plugged into day-time Disney fare. The former are the parents of Kim Possible's sidekike Ron Stoppable and the later is Kim's love interest in several episodes. Again, my take is that the characters on Project Runway et.al. are in fact characters in a drama. The standards of notablity for inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on the standards for Television characters. Jdclevenger 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  10:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses[edit]

This article is completely unreferenced and comprised entirely of a plot summary. John254 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, real book, coloring book and DVD. Surprisingly, it isn't listed at imdb even though there are several other Barbie direct-to-video animated films listed there. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, explanation, the DVD hasn't been released yet. It comes out in September. The book just came out August 22. It's a Golden Book for 4-8 year olds. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main Barbie article. TheRingess 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we did that with every Barbie product, the Barbie article would be far too unwieldy. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd rather watch an esperanto-dubbed copy of Gigli on a broken TV than any one of the Barbie direct-to-DVD movies, but the fact is they're fairly major products among the preteen set. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Starblind. Definitely seems to have notability...unfortunately. This regrettably removes the chance of any good lines such as "Stacie-sized delete" Irongargoyle 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I coudn't care less about anything Barbie related, but this is notable enought to keep. TJ Spyke 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable. Tikallover 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but requires major rewrite. For the record, I can't stand barbie either. - Blood red sandman 12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable, although it needs a clean-up. --71.118.76.179 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Adamson[edit]

Vanity page of non-notable musician. Fails to satisfy WP:MUSIC, as the albums released were not released by any major label or important indie label. Additionally, the albums were released by 'Uncharted Records' which was founded by Adamson himself, which would appear to make this WP:VANITY. The article cites no references, which leads to the conclusion that, with the exception of the discography, this is original research and so fails WP:V, and WP:RS also. Valrith 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be written by subject or friend thereof. Mainly not notable, but other points cited above are valid too. Seaphoto 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence albums charted, no major reviews. Rather, I found a couple of reviews, but as they were written in the first person I gather they were self-submitted ("This was actually the first song I wrote for this album."). No sales ranking of CDs on Amazon or AllMusic. No interviews or other articles about him. only 287 distinct Ghits. Tychocat 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and both comments above. NawlinWiki 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brea Bennett[edit]

Fails WP:PORN BIO with only 5 film credits and, from the article, she doesn't meet the other criteria. Crystallina 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also note that it was marked db-bio previously, but that tag was erased by the article's creator without comment. -- Mikeblas 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original speedier. I was actually just about to AfD this. Opabinia regalis 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep pending more research. The company they she works for is now owned by Playboy. They also produce web related material. It is not clear that she is simply a porn actress. Vegaswikian 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Californian Falcon[edit]

Taxonomy is nonsense, appears unrecognized by any recent authority. Dysmorodrepanis 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apparent hoax. WilyD 12:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a Californian falcon as far as I know. Besides, one of the two (!) binomial names given for it is that of the Peregrine Falcon.pointless 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the Peregrine thing too - I would guess the author of the article copied the Peregrine's template. WilyD 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete. Although the Kentucky eagle exists, there is no California falcon. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. If it really existed, it would be at California falcon, not Californian falcon. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody could check out Peters' "Checklist" - I think it is a synonym. The URL has posted many taxa which apparently are junior synonyms according to current knowledge. Names for color variants, clinal subpopulations, the works. Dysmorodrepanis 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler[edit]

This article has been previously proposed for deletion.

  • Keep. Missler is less than credible, but then so is Uri Geller, and there's a Wikipedia page on him. Both can claim to be public figures; both are published authors. A neutral point-of-view page providing fair warning about Missler, unaccredited universities and so on does Wikipedia readers a service. (I'm interested because I'm currently debating deletion of Wikipedia's SWANsat page -- Missler signed off on Welty's SWANsat "PhD" dissertation, despite having no expertise in communications research - the unaccredited and entirely bogus Louisiana Baptist University strikes again.) Lloyd Wood 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete requires a secondary reference to substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quick check on Google reveals 85,600 hits, most of which are relevant. The article is written fairly well, contains sources, and suggests some degree of notability. Was this recommended for deletion because he runs an unaccredited institute? I don't get the point of this nomination. RFerreira 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable author.--Tdl1060 16:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - he is an extremely well-known author. Go to amazon.com and key in "Chuck Missler" - he has plenty of books. His theology is a bit out there (Bible codes, UFOs), but that doesn't matter as far as his notability. BigDT 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep actually, as a nomination made by a banned user. Take a look at article history. The AFD tag was added by a mostly vandalism AOL user and the "2" was added by an impersonator of admin Tony Sidaway. Given that the impostor's edit was four minutes after the IP added the AFD tag, I think it's reasonable to assume that the two are one in the same. Thus, speedy keep as a nomination made by a banned user. BigDT 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of Eritrea[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article appears to be. Hires an editor 20:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Part of a series. All it needed was tidying up, which I have now done. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the data source needs to be verified! An alternative is e.g. [29] Dlyons493 Talk 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a paper encyclopedia ReverendG 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would like to see some more content to flesh this list out a bit, but geographical lists of something as basic as a district are not indiscriminate. Organized by region and with redlinks, this thing is not redundant with a category either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia (Othello)[edit]

  • Delete Not notable. Bradcis 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Notable as she is one of only three female characters in the play and is vital in unveiling Iago's plot. Certainly more notable than Brabantio "He is a minor character, but provides the backdrop for Othello and Desdemona's relationship.". Emilia is a major character, especially in the climax. raptor 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I should mention that I am the author. raptor 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at the very least Merge and Redirect to Othello. Shakespeare's works are so important to the literature and culture of the English-speaking world that even minor characters can be considered notable. Rohirok 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In one of Shakespeare's most famous works, every character with more than a couple of lines is notable. Having read Othello a few months ago, I can attest to how prominently Emilia figures into the plot. Given the mass of resources about Shakespeare, the article can be rewritten with a Neutral POV, using verifiable, reliable sources. Notability is not a formal policy and it alone is not enough reason to delete. SliceNYC 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slice and Rohirok. NawlinWiki 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Doc 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Atheist Conspiracy[edit]

article seems to be an inside joke from a newsgroup SnaX 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It is that sort of thing, but it does have its own website, which isn't much of a reason to keep it, though. I don't care that much.Tuesday42 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite an upwards of 50,000 google hits, I don't think this material is noteworthy in its own right. A Usenet bulletin (or whatever)? Come on. Perhaps it's popular enough to be appended to Internet phenomenon? Rashad9607 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenative Keep: In the vein of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Played a large part in the history of alt.atheism. Ironically, the very deletion nomination is in accordance with the "EAC does not exist" policy of the site. -Interested2 01:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which two articles? check WP:WEB to make sure they're relevant. to me, this article seems like an inside joke that escaped the rules because it was created a couple years ago. I don't think this article would make it in if it was created today. SnaX 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EAC doesn't even begin to approach the popularity of Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster. It fails WP:WEB. Interested2 says it's been mentioned in at least two articles. Where are they? I see no evidence that EAC "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," or that it fulfills either of the other 2 sufficient criteria of WP:WEB. Rohirok 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Can only find a mention on alt.atheism. Could have sworn I saw it in another article, but I can't find that now. I still say keep, but good call. -Interested2 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't dispute that this fails WP:WEB? Are you voting keep because you disagree with that standard? Rohirok 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gosh this article is old :( [30] 271 unique hits, low for an Internet thing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Evil Atheist Conspiracy is alive and well. If you delete it now, it will be going back in. EAC exists - it was originally a joke, but has been taken over by like-minded atheists to whom nothing is sacred in the battle against christianity. It stays. --The Atheist Go check our website, the EAC is real, right now! [31] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.170.252 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: EAC falls under Wikipedia policy concerning articles about web content. There are three criteria for inclusion, and fulfillment of any one of these would be sufficient to establish EAC's notability, and would therefore support your vote for keeping. Which of the three criteria do you contend EAC meets? If it does not meet any, it ought to be deleted. Rohirok 02:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We could move this to Internet phenomenon per Rashad9607, I suppose. I understand that this article was only made for the joke, but do we have an article dealing with the suspicions of a secular movement that are actually espoused by some conservative religious figures? Or am I thinking too hard, and should be moving to delete? -Umdunno 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll search for that.Tuesday42 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think there is one.Tuesday42 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks to me like it whiffs on all three criteria under the notability standard, and this is something probably best covered as a section in the article for the newsgroup. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it does in fact fail the three, then that's that. I concur with Mr. Darcy; Delete. Rashad9607 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why delete it? Webspace is cheap. An article deserves to be on this site even if it interests only one user.User:Torish
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fameism[edit]

Article is about a neologism (Google turns up 9 hits, most whch do not seem to be related to this "term"), could also be seen as original research. Prod removed without reason Wildthing61476 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article may well be original research, this does not make it any less true. The term 'Fameism' is a neologism, but the description of 'fameism' is none the less an occurance that is happening today. As an original piece of work it could be a template for incorporation into mainstream language and culture. Google turns up 22 hits, 2 of which are related to this 'term'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.119.144 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The above author's only edits are to this AfD and the article nominated. Wildthing61476 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion isn't a referendum on whether the word is a good word, a useful addition to the language. It's not even a discussion on whether the term will ever merit its own article. We're simply discussing whether it does currently. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 hits related to this term are on Urban Dictionary and have been created by the same person who made the entry on Wikipedia. There are no hits from reputable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.13.250 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Protologism, original research, and there is already a well known english word for this topic, it's called "Celebrity", and we have an article on that. --Xyzzyplugh 00:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research does not belong on Wikipedia, period. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny ReverendG 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in accordance with my comment above; NN neologism. WP:NOT for things made up in school and all. If the word catches on and someone creates fameism in a few years and that hits AfD I may or may not feel differently, but now is not the time. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gainax_ending[edit]

No original research. Unverifiable and not well-defined. There is no apparently no widely accept meaning of "Gainax Ending" other than an ending that doesn't satisfy the viewers. This is objective and not worth a wikipedia entry. The concept doesn't exist outside a select few anime circles, and is not even well-known in the anime world itself. No verifiable use of this term outside wikipedia, or other "answer" sources which borrow from wikipedia has been shown. There is no published record of this term. Mgio 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete borders on an attack page. Danny Lilithborne 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually found this page to be extremely interesting reading and I probably learned more from it than 99.99% of the other up-for-AfD articles I've read. However, I don't think this article can escape being basically a neologism (it does exist, but only recently and far from wide use). Hopefully the good parts can be merged into Series finale or other articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR and possible attack page. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO miserably. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm gonna have to go with Starblind on this one - I found this article very interesting and although it may not be worthy of a page on it's own, it definitely needs to be merged into something. Hell, it's a lot more useful than "Penis panic", which I have never heard of in my entire life and sounds like a cheap pornographic video game. Daisee
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged with Gobo (lighting) and redirected to Gobo. (aeropagitica) 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gobos[edit]

this article should be deleted becasue it is a lower standard duplicate of another article on the same subject.

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

The result was (Keep and )REDIRECT to Big Brother (USA season 6) nothing in this debate shows anything relevant about her beyond the show. That she is notable is not indoubt - but all that needs said can be said there. -Doc 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivette Corredero[edit]

I don't see anything to suggest notability outside of Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She's runner-up on a huge hit show. Looking for notability outside of Big Brother is plain silly. Why would we look beyond appearing for an entire season for a hit show, with up to 8 million people watching a single episode. Her notability is comparable to an actress with similiar exposure and coverage. --Rob 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Runner-up on a major reality program in the US. This is the kind of article that would draw in plenty of Googlers and hopefully they will stick around to pitch in. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ivette is a well known personality and her notability is not in doubt. Unitedroad 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect She has done nothing outside of Big Brother that people will know her for. This article violate WP:BIGBRO standards. A redirect into Big Brother (USA season 6) would deter new users from recreating the page. Geoking66 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect I agree with what Geoking66 said above. A-Supreme 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Youngamerican on this. Not only was she just a contestant, but she was actually the runner-up for the show. Benjaminx 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect superficial fancruft. Nothing that can't be said in the main BB article, and no notability outside of the show, which means we're forced to fil thi sarticle with silly, cheap content. The JPStalk to me 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A subsection for each housemate has now been put on the Big Brother 6 page. Therefore, this article is useless. Geoking66 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Ivette has done nothing outside of Big Brother, and as a very unpopular is likely to be vandalized meaning it has to be watched closely. Comedy240 15:58 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Foster (porn star)[edit]

This article was created in June with the sentence, "Joe Foster is a gay porn actor." Up until early this month, the only other changes that happened to the article were the bolding of the person's name and the addition of the {{porn-stub}} tag. The most recent edits have been to identify him as being from Australia and to add an additional sentence asserting the importance of the person. There is no source for the claim that he's gay; just because he won an award for being in a gay movie doesn't make that so. Articles like this are not stubs, they're a waste of time. If the original editor can't come up with more than a one-sentence article, they shouldn't start it; this should have been Speedy Deleted when it was first created. If Cole Tucker, with 7 awards, was deleted due to the article being unsourced and non-notable, why should this guy, with one award and no article content, stick around?—Chidom talk  06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree there is not enough content. I would contend though that, as I understand it, the reason for deleting Cole Tucker was not his lack of significance but the lack of quality content in his article. I would further argue that Joe Foster is as deserving as the many porn star entries that are currently in existence for a quality entry but this is obviously not a quality entry. Lastly, I take some exception to the statement about Joe Foster being gay. There is no statement in the article about him actually being gay but it is well documented that he worked in gay pornography.Fillups44 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If I misinterpreted the sentence, "Joe Foster is a gay porn actor", I'm sure I'm not alone. It could very well be read as describing his sexual orientation rather than the type of porn he appears in. The latter is acceptable provided a gay porn film that lists him in the cast credits is referenced; the former is potentially libellous unless specific veriable sources that state that he is gay are found.—Chidom talk  00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BaseballBaby 10:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bennett[edit]

Proposed deletion of not particularly notable designer who was eliminated in Project runway. No notability beyond the program. Laura Bennett seems a fairly commom name, and "Laura Bennett" + designer scored 13900 Ghits of which 743 unique. Of these, the relevant hits, the vast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant amount of Blog entries. Ohconfucius 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She hasn't been eliminated, and even if she was, Wikipedia has a history of allowing pages for even minor reality show contestants. She's not out, and this doesn't fall under anything in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I vote keep. --Trafton 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I see in the article is heaps of information about the subject, but nothing about her time on this reality television show other than the fact that she was in it. There's also nothing in the article to suggest that the person is notable outside the television show. talk to JD wants e-mail 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should this be deleted and all the many, many other articles on Project Runway contestants stay? Someone obviously just hates Laura and is bringing their drama with them.
  • Comment I obviously disagree that this is a bad faith nomination, and would ask you why it was so obvious that I have a grass with Laura? Kindly refer to other contestants' pages; many are also up for deletion. Also, kindly sign your entries in future. Ohconfucius 05:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe this violates Wikipedia's rules on deletion. --Gizmo4223 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons as Gizmo4233. The Fading Light 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Traftan Asarkees 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia exists to inform the public on a variety of subjects and it is not for a select few to decide which subjects are legitimate. I am a fan of the show and I searched for Laura Bennett and found useful information here; the article should stay. It is accurate, concise, and its existence is not hurting anyone; I don't understand why anyone would waste their time being disgruntled about it.
  • Keep Laura is my favorite designer on PR. She's definitely the most interesting on the show. If your problem is that the article doesn't talk about PR enough... add that to the article, don't just whine about it. User:TRCunning
  • Keep Laura is my also my favorite designer on PR. I don't see how this article violates Wikipedia's rules.User:CosMoboho
  • Keep THIS is a great resource and the information is not found anywhere else. I'm glad to have found it so easily on wikipedia.
  • Keep This article is informative of a popular character from one of the most popular reality TV shows. The reasons for removing are futile! -GarrettRock 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ROH World Heavyweight Championship defenses[edit]

List of ROH World Heavyweight Championship defenses

  • Delete Useless fan cruft. TJ Spyke 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as blanked by an IP editor in early August. (aeropagitica) 09:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries of the European Union in the official languages[edit]

No informative content; just a table header. 'FLaRN' (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Per CSD A3, so tagged. Irongargoyle 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like this got fleshed out. Interesting list. Irongargoyle 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It should not take a half hour to write a nomination. If you can't write an AfD now, stick the tag on the article later. If people do this, it's not a big deal to just delete the tag. Given the indication that the page is useful (by the way, that should be "Keep" not "Oppose") and lack of reasoning for deletion, and the likely little attention this will receive because it's the end of the day anyway, I'm closing this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the Year (film)[edit]

Oppose Hmm, well, not sure why this disambiguation page was put up for deletion, since the nominating editor didn't explain his/her reasoning. So since I created the page I'll start. As I noted when moving the original MOTY article to Man of the Year (2006 film), I'm planning on writing an article about one of the other films of that title. I may write one about one of the other MOTY movies too. It strikes me as completely reasonable and logical to have a disambig page for a topic that has at least five and possibly more potential articles. Otto4711 04:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed pervaiz siddiqui[edit]

Article claims that he is a prominent businessman; "one of the richest men in East Africa". He might very well be notable, but I am unable to find any references to verify notability. Relevant policies and/or guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS. -AED 06:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero nexis hits, which means that he has never been mentioned in the New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, etc. Access to a similar database of African press would be nice but, absent that, I will work from the data I have. The man is not so very rich as to be notable. Uucp 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— Saddens me to see myself vote for deletion of a third world article since we are so first world centric. But lacking help from someone who can cite sources, we are almost compelled to delete as unsourced and potential a hoax. Left notice at User talk:AED in hope that this user can provide some insight on sources. Williamborg (Bill) 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure why you contacted me. I've nominated the article for deletion due to lack of sources. -AED 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Samuel[edit]

Not notable, as a stub or otherwise--check hits—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy Keep. Author of over a dozen scholarly books on solid presses, and co-founder of academic journal. Influential enough to have had academic research center named after him! LotLE×talk 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the article can be modified so that it includes content that is notable, I will change my vote to "keep". -Kmaguir1 01:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing notability. There are tons of people who have 13 books out no one's every heard of who do not belong on wikipedia, and tons of people who started an academic journal who are not on here.-Kmaguir1 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue they do belong on Wikipedia if they've been published so extensively. Obviously both they, and their books, need to be included because it's quite possible someone might actually be researching ther work. I've never heard of Nonterminating Numerical Decimals by Albert Wier (fictional) but someone might need to research it and it needs to be included here.-Shazbot85Talk 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an encyclopedia, and thus notability should be strictly construed. A person of note to a specialist in a field is not necessarily notable, unless there has been a popular strain in that field. Again, I know of oodles of published, intelligent authors who are not on Wikipedia, and do not belong. Weed out the ones who are on here just because they have a fan club. That's where I'm coming from. Since the material has been added, it's possibility it's only a weak delete, but again, a Marxist historian who published 13 books no one read? Would that make it into an ordinary encyclopedia? I think not. -Kmaguir1 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and even if it were. Well, Samuel doesn't get an independent entry in my 2004 EB (admittedly not the paper edition, but I think the content is the same); but he is referenced in the "Western theatre" entry. I wonder if Kmaguir1 will next AfD today's frontpage article on Sequence alignment, which likewise appeals to specialists, with little-to-no popular discussion of the topic. LotLE×talk 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the spectrum of notability has anything to do with the fact he is a person of note and worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia. For instance State Route 385 (Tennessee) is included on Wikipedia. No one outside of the Memphis/Collierville/Millington area really knows about Paul Barret Parkway. The spectrum of notability does not come into play there, I fail to see how it applies here. -Shazbot85Talk 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to delete State Route 385 even as I modified it--and we all know how much you hate driving on it, Shazbot. I would vote to delete it because it's nn. However, there are other state routes on here, so you want to be consistent. "References" are not enough to determine notability--it has to be notable. And you have to quantify this. About one million people in Memphis, plus another one million who used to live in Memphis, could tell you what State Route 385 or Nonconnah or Bill Morris or Paul Barrett was. I don't think two million people in the entire world could tell me who Raphael Samuel was.-Kmaguir1 00:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spectrum of notability doesn't dimish that is it notable. -Shazbot85Talk 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable. He's been published. -Shazbot85Talk 06:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination and vote to delete lack merit.--Anthony Krupp 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator's notion of notability is becoming notorious. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, clearly meets notability criteria thanks to LotLE's expansion. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep meetgs all criteria. Kudos to LotLE Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep please it looks like bad faith nomination to me Yuckfoo 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This person is notable. So, It stands WP:Notability, and he was book publisher. Daniel's page ☎ 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Raphael Samuel had a profound effect on the historical profession in Britain and elsewhere. His published work is notable but does not reflect his influence on generations of students and historians. He has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography and a portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. A entry should stay but not this one as it fails to capture Samuel's importance to the New Social History of the 1960s, to the project of 'history from below' and later to his writings on culture and memory. It is also inaccurate in places. Peter Claus (Raphael Samuel History Centre, University of East London). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.45 (talk • contribs)
If you know more about him, as suggested, fleshing out the biography would be great. I just worked it up from a short stub myself, but I'm sure it could be enhanced further. In particular, if you can provide citations, it would be good to include facts about Dictionary of National Biography and National Portrait Gallery. Or generally, any further elaboration (with proper citation) about his effect on historiography. LotLE×talk 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large amount of published work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons enumerated above. --Myles Long 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No one except the nominator appears to believe the subject of this article is non-notable. Suggest a speedy keep at this point. RFerreira 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, since no-one at all has expressed the opinion that this should be deleted. The nominator, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), performed only one of the three steps for nominating the article. Xe didn't create a discussion page with xyr rationale for nominating or give any inkling of xyr rationale in the edit summary. Ironically, User:DumbBOT only completed the nomination because User:Wjhonson created this discussion page. Uncle G 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Best (designer)[edit]

  • Keep - ["Robert Best" designer] gets 16,000 Google hits. He is mentioned on thousands of unique websites as a designer for Barbie, etc. He is well-known in the Barbie world, and elsewhere since he appeared on Project Runway. Certainly meets notability standards. Wjhonson 06:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wondering where the original deletion notice went. --Trafton 08:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. Jdclevenger 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim seems to be that unless you have notability outside of a Reality TV series, you are not entitiled to space in Wikipedia (space being such an increadably precious commodity within Wikipedia. Oh wait it isn't, is it?). By this logic, all Wikipedia pages devoted to fictional characters should be marked for deletion. After all, a fictional character's notability is almost by defintion a construct of the fiction in which he or she occurs. For example, Col. Jack O'Neill has a very nice article despite the fact that he is a character on Stargate / SG-1. Presumably, his notabilty is solely a function of the movie and the TV show and all the web references about him will be in the same contexts. Jack O'Neill will never write a book or run for president or do anything else notable, other than be a character of fiction. The contestants on a Reality TV show occupy an interesting niche. There notablity may be nothing more than that given by the show on which they appear. But if being a character on SG-1 is sufficent for notablity for Jack O'Neill, then it strikes me that it is sufficent for Kayne Gillaspie, Keith Michael, Bradley Baumkirchner, and all the rest. Jdclevenger 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A follow-up to my note above. One might argue that as main character on a series that has run for 10 years, Jack O'Neill has acheived some kind of notableness outside the context of the show. If so, one would still be hard pressed to justify the pages of Mr. and Mrs. Stoppable or Josh Mankey. These may not ring any bells for those not plugged into day-time Disney fare. The former are the parents of Kim Possible's sidekike Ron Stoppable and the later is Kim's love interest in several episodes. Again, my take is that the characters on Project Runway et.al. are in fact characters in a drama. The standards of notablity for inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on the standards for Television characters. Jdclevenger 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was :Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman). WinHunter (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheVanguard.Org[edit]

The page is primarily promoting and advertising and is almost completely unverifiable. DoctorSqueak 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mars-Sekhmet, UABVulcan, and Jawed3 all make good points. Wiki is not the right place for political disagreements. Groups like TheVanguard.org, Move-On, NOW, ATR, etc. are all important players in America's democratic process. TheVanguard.org has influential board members and a high profile president, plus the article is thoroughly referenced. Turkey2020 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UABVulcan is right. Disagreements with an organization are not grounds for its removal from Wiki. It's certainly no more "promotional" than the Move-On, NOW, or Act Up articles. The article is accurate, well-referenced, and does not resort to puffery. Mars-Sekhmet 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The continued character assassination using wiki as a political POV vehicle is appalling. Besides, this article is a NPOV entry which states merely the facts about a political organization. As such, my vote is to keep. UABVulcan 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This vote is just part of the general attack on Rod Martin. That was settled on his article, and it's time to settle it here. Jawed3 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons just stated in my comment below, I think this article should be here (which is why I wrote it in the first place). Everyone knows about the big names like Dobson and Kennedy and Falwell, but they need to know who else is in the room when Rove is doing his thing. These people have access, they are privy to things the rest of us are not, and everyone has a right to know that. And whoever's trying to cover it up is doing everyone a real disservice. Maybe they're stooges for the RNC. DelosHarriman 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing in this article which makes any special claims about the group. However, the group is clearly relevant, in that it is a participating member of the Arlington Group[32], an tight little organization of pro-family groups led by people like Jim Dobson and D. James Kennedy which gets regular private briefings at the White House and has gotten a lot of negative press for its inside leaks from Karl Rove.[33][34] It seems obvious to me that the public would want to know who these people are and (horrors!) even what they say about themselves. Unless you're trying to cover this sort of thing up.... Samdmd 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arlington Group is composed of at least 75 member groups. If you actually look at the groups you cannot seriously argue that all 75 of them are notable.
Over half of the Arlington Group's member organizations are actually part of another Arlington Group member organization (e.g., there are at least three on the list which are headed by D. James Kennedy, at least ten headed by James Dobson). The number of principles in the room is reputed to be about thirty; and they have constant access to Rove, Bush, etc. If that's not notable (especially to the majority of Americans who don't like George Bush and Karl Rove), I'd like to know what is. I think all of this should be known, and I think you're engaging in a cover-up. DelosHarriman 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that Rod Martin has constant access to Rove or Bush, it is hard to know what to respond except that your Rod Martin boosterism is getting in the way of your analytical skills.
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 919,635. --Xyzzyplugh 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Poverty Law Center's been around forever and has an Alexa ranking of 101,229. The National Urban League is huge and has an Alexa ranking of 435,884 (which is about what TheVanguard.Org's was this week). Americans for Tax Reform is widely considered one of the most influential lobbying groups in America: its Alexa ranking is 573,517. So what? Samdmd 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The southern povery law center, the national urban league, and americans for tax reform are organizations which happen to have websites, so alexa ranking would not be terribly important in determining their notability. Alexa ranking is useful for helping to determine the notability of something that is a website. --Xyzzyplugh 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa ranking just hit 370,380, with a one week ranking much higher. Pretty big jump (on a 3 month moving average) since your comment mere days ago. Puts them ahead of most major conservative groups in the country too. Oops for you. DelosHarriman 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta (minor characters)[edit]

Delete: I don't think this page is needed anymore. We've started to add pages for the characters.- JustPhil 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:FICT unless this is being maintained elsewhere, in which case merge and redirect to that location. RFerreira 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per rferreira this is the best place for these here Yuckfoo 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -AMK152 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Haven (Internet Forum)[edit]

CSD'd under {{db-web}}, which has clear consensus on being invalid. Also met resistance from its author regarding notability - therefore I figure AFD is the best way to resolve this. I still call delete per WP:WEB. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.


  • Delete. This forum is far less notable than others I've seen deleted in the past. Nom has it right. I'm not sure how this didn't get speedied. ju66l3r 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another group of forum-buddies who want to see themselves in Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk
  • Delete. As per reasons above. Currently arguing with page maker on the discussion page, hopefully they'll see the error of their ways.--ChinaNailStorm 00:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep......Um so you know we just dont want to see our selfs on wiki we want to get our message to the masses, the ones sick of all the rules every were that keep the little man down....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) .
  • While I don't care if it's deleted, I'm still not going down without a fight--Megafan 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an expression, meaning I'm going to try and prove that it shouldn't be deleted--Megafan 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you don't care as you say you don't, why bother? (|-- UlTiMuS 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red, sign your posts with 4 of these: ~....You're not Red...Well that goes to both you and Red about the signing --Megafan 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I give in, I don't care if it's deleted, and I'm not going to argue anymore. Red, I don't want you to argue either --Megafan 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • go ahead and deleate it.....you still will lose the fight....why .....becuse we will still have our place and also beucse blaze of merc never admits defeat.....i dont care if you drive me to oblivion its slef ....i will never go down ....but if i do i take all i can with me....that is my way and my way is real...BELEAVE IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) .
  • Red, that was very stupid--Megafan 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep this discussion on topic. This is not an internet forum. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a webforum with 62 members, clearly doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:V, no reliable sources on this. --Xyzzyplugh 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, the creator of the page, have already said that I don't care if it's deleted--Megafan 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


and i dont care if you deleate it since we will survive and stil be able to continue our way of life....

  • Can somebody mark the page for speed deletion or whatever it's called?--Megafan 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed it, per your request. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 {{db-group}}, non-notable motley collection of teen wrestlers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Hardcore Wrestling[edit]

nn backyard wrestling organization, violates WP:VAIN Renosecond 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 total made-up nonsense. WP:IAR and WP:SNOW refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pegasaurus[edit]

Couldn't find a decent CSD criterion handy, but this is one of those silly pages created by people with too much time on their hands BigHaz 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_28&oldid=1142647447"