Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

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 of the debate was merged/redirected. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goleta Postal massacre[edit]

Entire content of article is contained in article Goleta, California. Rockero 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, entire text is indeed in that other article, so no need to even merge. Only found 1 Ghit (out of four total) on the term that didn't lead back to WP. HumbleGod 23:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: also covered in Going postal too. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Is this a news article or an encyclopedia atricle. Seems to be a news article to me... Mbralchenko 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Goleta, California, since it's already been merged and redirects are cheap. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Moo. Herostratus 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: the Goleta article seems the best home for this info. Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's just a straight copy of the from the article it should be redirected to, presumably by someone who doesn't yet know about redirects. This didn't need to be AfDed. Grandmasterka 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical negro[edit]

Possibly made up term. Ibaranoff24 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC) My apologies. (Ibaranoff24 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep, sources in the article demonstrate that it's not made-up. Catamorphism 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've heard the term before outside of Wikipedia, and it demonstrates a valid point about modern film. HumbleGod 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "possibly made up"? You're wasting people's time with an AFD and don't even bother to check its etymology? Did you even read the article (which, granted, needs work)? - DavidWBrooks 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Brim 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real plot stereotype. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep very much not-made-up plot device. --DarkAudit 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable stock character from American film. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why isn't there a mention of the take on this on The Man Show? --Burgwerworldz 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Oh, nice article btw. ;) - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbank Memorial Park[edit]

Non-notable park, even among Toronto parks. --Christopher Thomas 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is already listed at List of Toronto parks, and the article adds little additional information. This park isn't notable, and there are several dozen others just like it in the city. The parks that _are_ notable in Toronto are Downsview Park, High Park, the Toronto Islands, and maybe Ashbridge's Bay Park. --Christopher Thomas 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non-notability is not necessarily a factor when deciding whether or not to keep an article. Moreover, in his above comment, Christopher Thomas severely misrepresents the state parks in Toronto, as well as their converage on Wikipedia. Not only are there many parks deserving of articles, there's a whole category that includes a substantial portion of them. While the article is rather paltry at the moment, it does provide useful information, and it is frequently the case that great articles start out small. Another consideration is that this appears to be the first article Daloonik has created. While this alone can't be a reason not to delete, it can be a reason to err on the side of keep, as destroying the work of a contributor who took the initiative to learn enough about Wikipedia to create an article, including apparently going out to take pictures specifically for the article, is only likely to discourage a user who has shown he can make useful edits from continuing to participate on Wikipedia. Stanfordandson 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that is not quite true, this user was also the creator of the ever-so-interesting page Fairbank Memorial Community Recreation Centre. He was also blocked recently. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. While a list of all parks in Toronto can be argued to be in scope, articles about every patch of land with grass and trees on it aren't. I live in Toronto, and am extremely familiar both with its parks in general, and with Fairbank Memorial Park (which I visit regularly). My comments stand. --Christopher Thomas 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and redirect to List of Toronto parks. Also delete the page just mentionned. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my opinion to keep given new edits. Pascal.Tesson 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Wikipedia has individual articles on metro stations all over the world, why not parks? --Rbraunwa 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the debate here is not about metro stations but on this article. How are "why not?" arguments going to enlighten the discussion? Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be rude. The OP has a point. If one thing, why not another? Ey is clearly showing that the bar for inclusion is entirely arbitrary. Why not address his point rather than make a rude reply? Grace Note 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The logical way to address his argument is to slap "merge to list of (city) subway stations" on all but the most notable of the station stubs. Grand Central Station would certainly qualify. Union Station (Toronto) _might_ qualify, as it's a historic building and a well-known landmark. Donlands (TTC), on the other hand, serves no useful purpose as a separate article. --Christopher Thomas 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to list of Toronto parks for now. That list could be organised as a table, say, with pictures of the parks and information about each of them. Of course, when there is enough information it can be split out again into its own article, but I think it makes much more sense in a list at the moment. --bainer (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. Please read policy before nominating articles you don't like. Grace Note 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article had any significant content, you might have a point. If it weren't for WP:NOT, you might also have a point. As it stands, the stub serves no purpose that the list of Toronto parks doesn't already serve, and given the non-notability of the park, I have grave doubts about it _ever_ having content that justifies a separate article. --Christopher Thomas 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that Grace Note provides no actual reason why the article should be kept, just an ad hominem attack on reasons why the article should be deleted. Proto///type 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's something particularly notable about the park apart from its presence. BigHaz 06:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's a park in Toronto. There is nothing encyclopaedic about that; all the necessary exposition possible on an unnotable park is within the List of Toronto parks. The park has no special features or unique aspects that make it anything more than a patch of grass and trees. Quite frankly, if it wasn't already going through AFD, I'd speedy delete the article as containing no significant content. The article states "Fairbank Memorial Park is a park in Toronto. There's a street to the west, and it has a community centre". That's not even a substub. Proto///type 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public parks are notable public resources, and this is a perfectly reasonable stub. List of Toronto parks does not include any information about any of the parks in question apart from their names, so a Merge to that target doesn't seem like a viable option. If it's merged anywhere (which I'd still discourage), it should be to the neighborhood that contains the park. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't get it. How is a 1 block park a "notable public resource"? Look at a Google earth or something and you'll see what this is: a park with a baseball field and a basketball court. Any city the size of Toronto has about 100 of these. So even by a conservative estimate there are hundreds of thousands of parks like this all over the world. I don't see how any future editor will be motivated to expand this. Half of the edit history is due to racist vandalism created by user:Daloonik and user:Stanfordandson (who incidently voted above to keep the page). Why keep open an article that's a sandbox for vandals? Pascal.Tesson 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't currently have time to respond to everything I'd like to respond to here, I'd like to point out that at no time did I ever make a racist or vandalistic edit to that article. I'll deal with this more later, but before I do, I suggest you bone up on Wikipedia's no personal attack policy and Wikipedia's civility policy. I take accusations of racism very seriously. Stanfordandson 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion. If it were, we wouldn't have an article on a lot of topics worthy of coverage, including George W. Bush. If vandalism is a problem, request semi-protection for the article. As to your other point, neither you nor I have any idea as to which articles hypothetical future editors will want to expand. We have some very nice articles on small urban parks, such as Ralph Bunche Park (to cite one example), so it's certainly not out of the question that some editor will improve this one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that I am not saying that the article should be deleted because of vandalism. All I am saying is that an article about an un-notable small park (unlike Ralph Bunche Park) is a door left open for trolling. Keeping the article means having admins patrolling it to remove inappropriate edits and then facing accusations of stalking (again, pls take a look at the edit history). There is no benefit for Wikipedia to keep this article. Pascal.Tesson 18:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've already looked at the edit history, thanks, and my opinion is unchanged. If someone wants to troll or vandalize, they're going to find a place to do it, whether it's this article or somewhere else. Deleting the article would only deny useful information to legitimate users. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep _saying_ that, but your argument about "denying useful information" breaks down for articles, like this one, that contain _no_ useful information. What purpose does this article, right now, serve? --Christopher Thomas 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, even though it's a stub, the article still indicates the location of the park within Toronto and the existence of a community center within the park. It also provides two photographs of the park, indicating that the north end is mostly level ground, with a paved area containing children's playground equipment. That is useful information for someone interested in the subject, and it's information that wouldn't be available from a plain entry on a list. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I went ahead and expanded it a little. If you thought it was non-notable before, you may want to re-consider that opinion... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Major scandal that involved high-ranking municipal politicians accepting bribes to give the park to developers? A non-notable piece of land with grass and trees indeed! Thanks for the edits, Hb,ws! Stanfordandson 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The list of Toronto parks, though it may seem large, is in fact incomplete. It would make that article even more cumbersome to merge this current article with that one. I would also like to draw people's attention to what wikipedia really is. This is a place for information to be shared, and although most of you may have never visited this park in person, there might be somebody who would want pictures of this park, and would like to find them somewhere on the internet; this is the place for that. Trivialising an urban park, small as it may be, should not be done on wikipedia. In time, I would like to see an article with photographs of every urban park in Toronto, and the list of Toronto parks containing links to each of those parks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Hit bull, win steak for expanding the article. Vivelequebeclibre 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to user Hit bull, this is now notable, reliably sourced and a keeper IMO. Crum375 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, guys. Y'all are makin' me blush. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I have some doubts about having an article for every city park in the world (or Toronto) I think this one passes with the changes by Hit Bull.--Nick Y. 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. — getcrunk what?! 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least as notable as some schools, particularly in the present form. Powers 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The scandal was fairly significant at the time. CJCurrie 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HBWS's edits. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - appears to be somewhat notable, would prefer an expansion -- Tawker 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - It's sourced, and there's picture. Nothing wrong with this article existing. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. – Avi 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Irish-Americans[edit]

also including List of Irish-American actors, List of Irish American gangsters, List of Irish American musicians, List of Irish American politicians.

Merge all to Irish American including only those who are actually partly famous for being Irish-American like Gene Kelly, Ted Kennedy, Tyrone Power, Ronald Reagan. Lists of anyone and everyone who've said "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day are not encyclopedic IMO. Arniep 20:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • do not delete leave as is. Certainly do not merge with 'Irish American' article. Few or no 'xxx American' articles include a name list. The names are all found in 'list of xxx American' articles which is what these articles are for. I created these sub-articles after proposing it on the main 'List of Irish Americans' article and receiving no opposition and one support. Why: the List of Irish Americans' article was getting too long and hard to maintain. As far as the contents of the list, the argument provided is irrelevant to the question. It is up to editors to determine who should be in the list or not, based on facts. Thanks Hmains 20:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(above moved from the AfD's talk page)
  • Delete these and all other "lists of foos". They can never be comprehensive and it's a bitter fight to get them anywhere near compliant with our policies. Most importantly, it's hard to imagine a reader thinking "oh, maybe if I search under 'list of Irish-American gangsters', something will come up". I think the "what will the reader expect?" test is a good one for articles. Categories were invented for precisely the purpose these lists purportedly serve. However, this is another case in which I do not expect anything resembling common sense to prevail. Far too many people "contribute" to Wikipedia by adding names to lists and once more mob rule will likely win the day. Grace Note 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if we don't need "list of Jewish whatever" we don't need this either. A category would be sufficient anyway. Haikupoet 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I second Grace Note's comments. --Rbraunwa 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - not sure what to think. However, I believe, there is one list that now fully complies with Wiki's policies, and that is List of Welsh Americans. Every name is fully sourced to something that says the person in question is a Welsh-American. I plan on doing these once a day, alphabetically up from Welsh. So, Vietnamese - watch out - you're next. Mad Jack 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a List of Jewish American politicians. Since Irish-Americans are a much more prominent part of American politics, this list should stay. This list could use a new format though. It also doesn't list many politicians. It could be divided up into different categories and include many more Irish American politicians with wikipedia pages that are in the Irish-American politician category, but not on the List of Irish-American page. 75.3.49.50

03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

'Do Not Delete the list' - this list does have value to researchers - Irish American studies as with other ethnic groups is common among sociologists , geneologists and other individuals who are carrying out various research projects at different levels. The Irish were the first great wave of immigration and it is important that a preliminary data-base of notable people is available. However I do beleive that only "sourced" entries should remain on the list - I take the point that it is possible for an individual to talk about their Irish ancestry yet there may be no "source available on the net - but the source can be a book or other material as long as the details are noted/cited. This list like all wikipedia lists and articles is subject to vandalism, silly and un-substantiated entries but as with all articles and lists is also subject to policing and these entries ultimately are corrected or removed. This list is valuable to other Irish studies including historic events such as the Irish Diaspora and The Irish Fammine. It should not be removed. If teh debate is over the name of the list - I really do not care if it is called "List of Irish Americans" or "List of Irish Americans or Americans of Irish Descent". The list is an excellent first level for research - particulalry around St Patrick's Day that is celebrated World-wide and as such generates numerous articles about "Irish Americans" "Irish Culture" "Famine Descendents" "Irish Actors and muscians" - The Irish hold a unique place in the world in that there is no corner of the world where they did not go and it is also unique that this identity can remain strong after many generations - as stated previously in Ireland many visitors arrive to trace their roots from several generations ago. In talked about in previous discussions on the article talk page, people world-wide but particularly in America can have an Italian, Polish, German, Spanish etc. etc. surname yet claim to be or feel Irish because of a close or remote ancestral connection and this is not only unique but has been acceptable to the Irish who experienced the first "ethnic" cleansing at the hands of a colonial government who did their best to wipe out "Irishness" but rather by doing so only enforced it. Therefore the Irish traditionally held on to their identity as something very precious and whether it is 1 or 10 generations in the past it is as valid to them. The Irish Government has also acknowledged the irish connectiosn throughout the world and has made numrous references to it and the waves of Irish that were forced to leave their country due to opression is as important to the Irish and to world history as is the Holocaust. The list should not be removed. Vono 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 86.12.253.32 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These lists are useful. Anyone who has an article on Wikipedia, or should do, and is eligible for a given list should be included. Lists are better than categories, because they can be annotated and can have redlinks for people who should have articles but don't yet. And categories have exactly the same problems as lists regarding comprehensiveness and adherence to policy.--Newport 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn, leaning Weak keep. Obviously, we CANNOT delete just one of these lists by ethnicity - it needs to be an all or nothing proposition. Lists on Wikipedia are useful if they either (a) provide meaningful information that you can't get out of a category (eg a table like this) or (b) include redlinked elements to assist in the creation of articles. This list contains really only a citation ... so there is no added value from that standpoint for having a list vs a category - the citation could just as easily be in the article itself. It contains very few redlinks ... and really, in the time you take to add someone to the list, you could create a stub for them. So I don't know that these lists really serve any good purpose that couldn't be accomplished by a category. However, because it would be wholly inappropriate to delete them piecemeal, keep. BigDT 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem is it is just not clear what can be considered a reliable, reputable, verifiable source that a person is an Irish-American. If someone makes a list and puts it on the net is that a reliable source? If someone says "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day is that a reliable verifiable source that that person is an Irish American? If someone says "I am proud of my Irish heritage" is that? If someone says "I have Irish blood running through my veins" is that? What about "My heart is in Ireland" or "I feel as Irish as can be" or "I consider my Irish heritage a fundemental part of who I am"? All these statements would suggest to me that these people consider themselves Irish Americans, but some people think that only if they say "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day that is enough or some people think only if they say specifically "I am an Irish-American" or are described by someone as exactly that in a reputable reliable verifiable source (what is a reliable source for who and who is not an Irish American again?). Arniep 13:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arniep, this has been explained to you by several editors who are very familiar with policy. You either have a source saying someone is an Irish-American, or you don't. See List of Welsh Americans for how these lists need to be done. Don't worry, Arnie, "I" isn't too far up from "W" in the alpha-bet and I will get to doing this list in no time. Mad Jack 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:List of Irish American politicians to see a different kind of format for the List of Irish-American politicians. Also note that you guys are saying what is a reliable source for Irish-American. Most people in the Irish-American politician category are of only Irish ancestry with a few exceptions. 75.3.49.50 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - these lists serve an important function, and you can't just delete one while leaving others such as "List of Jamaican Americans" and "List of Cambodian Americans" - Nesher 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Agreed that this list cannot be deleted in isolation - I for one am not concerned with what the verifiable source is other than that somewhere it should be on record that this person has been identified as Irish American either by their own statements or that of others whether it is only on St Patrick's Day or or through continuous identification is irrelevant - most well known historic figures or celebrities have family ancestry included in their biographies. The list provides that initial starting point that is key for research allowing the researcher to make the determination if tehy wish to pursue further detail and also it serves to encourage stubs and articles. I think that identity is a very personal thing and open to individual interpretation which is why there needs to be a minimum requirement for inclusion otherwise names are simply added because they "sound" Irish or maliciously to vandalise the list for some personal agenda also names can be removed for personal agendas - for instance say Robert De Niro or Liza Minnelli - both have documentable Irish ancestry and both have spoken about it in some form over their long careers, yet someone uninformed may determine that because their names are Italian in origin they do not belong on the list of Irish Americans or similarly that because of irish ancestry do not belong on a list of Italian Americans (of course they belong on both) or it could be that individuals are simply "portective" of their celebrity and want exclusive ownership by their (the editor's) chosen ethnic identity. Reliable citations avoid this for accuracy and research.Vono 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge (see above)- seems a reasonable list entry with substantial content, also agree that other similar lists would have to be deleted if this one was. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find lists like this useful.--Runcorn 19:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If these lists are going to continue to exist, should people such as Maurice Costello be excluded, because I cannot find a source that says specifically that he was an "Irish-American"? He was born to Irish immigrants Thomas Costello and Ellen Fitzgerald in 1877. Yet, I have searched far and wide on Google and I can find no source that says he was specifically an "Irish-American", and, according to some users, this means that he cannot go on the list of Irish-Americans. Arniep 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe he didn't consider himself Irish-American. If you dig a little deeper, you can find a few sites that say he was part Spanish. Though those may be incorrect. I am not sure. Mad Jack 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, this case is a perfect example of why I am arguing against this list as it stands. He is surely a lot more Irish than a large amount of people currently on the lists of Irish Americans for making some vague statement about Irishness. Would I be permitted to use Maurice Costello as an example of an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland on the Irish American page but not on the Lists of Irish-Americans? Clearly a non sensical situation. Something needs to give. Arniep 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing needs to give. You have given no evidence at all that we are "stealing away" Costello's right to be Irish-American. You have no evidence that he considered himself as such, and you can find, so far, no sources that have referred to him as such. If you do, that would be great. Until then, he should be kept off the list. Oh, and I suppose you could say "Costello traces his ancestry to Ireland" on Costello's page and on the Irish American pages, though that would be pointless. Surely some more prominant Irish-Americans can be found to illustrate the main page. No need to use Costello, who we are not even sure about. Mad Jack 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK fine. Just so it is clear to everyone who wants to keep these lists, we are including people who say "I am Irish" on St Patrick's Day, but excluding the children of Irish immigrants if we can't find a source that says specifically that they are an "Irish-American". Arniep 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this St. Patrick's Day thing? I don't think there's a single person sourced to a link where they say "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day (i.e. an article dated on St. Patrick's Day - you get the point). I am also not sure why you are once again inquiring on this, since it's been explained to you so many times, dating even back to the List of British Jews. Mad Jack 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People often say "I am Irish" on St. Patrick's Day when they're drunk, but, according to you, that would be a sufficient source to put someone on the lists. But NO!! Not a source that actually says someone was the child of Irish immigrants. NO NO NO NO!!! Arniep 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, do you think we have cameras trained on every celebrity so we can catch their drunken ramblings on St. Patrick's Day? Honestly, Arnie, if you want to use the "St. Patrick's Day" argument, you're going to have to find a single source linked to here that is even vaguely like that. Mad Jack 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether anyone actually is sourced as speaking on St. Patrick's Day. The fact is, if someone is reported as saying "I am Irish" on St. Patrick's Day you will accept that. But not "I am of Irish ancestry" or "I have Irish blood" which probably mean exactly the same thing in that context. And not if we have a source saying a person was the son of Irish immigrantS. NO NO. Even though all those sources accord with the definition of Irish American as an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. Arniep 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just like the fact that the definition of plagarism matches your opinion that Jones did not commmit it, but yet.... if no sources say that he didn't, you're not allowed to under Wiki policy. Specifically. So I ask you, politely, to stop mentioning this "Defintion", which, besides being ambigious and essentially meaning that there are no non-X Americans out there at all, is explicitly prohibited from being used to match a person to a term, because it is indeed a definition. I also beg you to stop using the St. Patrick's Day "argument", because, as you have been unable to find a single example like that, is moot. Mad Jack 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's in no way moot. If a person says "I'm Irish" you have decided you will accept that to put them on the list, but not if they say "both of their parents are Irish", or "I am proud of my Irish heritage", all of which are convey the same meaning that the person is an Irish-American in accordance with the definition in major reference works (including Wikipedia) which define an Irish-American as an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. I want to make it clear that I am in no way arguing for people of distant Irish ancestry who have never muttered one word on their Irish forebear/s to be included, just that we use some common sense and if necessary invoke WP:IGNORE if some users believe that policy may prevent, for example someone of two Irish parents not to be included. Arniep 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, arniep, I can't really say to you much more than has already been said, dating back to the List of British Jews. If you have questions/concerns, you can discuss each name with me individually, though right now only on Welsh Americans and Vietnamese Americans - I take no responsibility for any other pages at this point. I'm doing one a day, so I should get to the Irish one this month. Oh, and as for two Irish parents, it's already been explained to you, by Jayjg I think, what if that person just considers themselves "American"? Mad Jack 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not very good arguments all round, but the keep ones seem better. And John Fitzgerald Kennedy, an Irish American if there ever was one, once said 'Ich bin ein Berliner'; can he go on the list of German Americans?--Brownlee 11:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you'd have to use common sense to realise that would not be appropriate! Sorry! Arniep 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --BrenDJ 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there is an overall consensus guideline on lists of ethnic Americans generally. I do think there's a huge difference between Irish-Americans who immigrated from Ireland, Irish-Americans who are children or perhaps grandchildren of immigrants who grew up in a household strongly informed by Irish cutlture, and Irish-Americans whose ancestors happen to have come from Ireland but who have no strong inbred connection to Irish culture. I would prefer to see the latter types not included in these lists. However, its a continuum, so that's difficult. Herostratus 00:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty easy. If the source said they are Irish-Americans, they can be on the list. If not, not. You'll find that for the most part the latter types are indeed the ones referred to as such. Mad Jack 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad - jack yes referring to the latter group mentioned in the penultimate entry above I agree that quite often the fact that an individual has remote Irish ancesrty does not always qualify them for inclusion in that perhaps they do not feel "Irish" However it is also possible for someone to have remote Irish Ancestry (I consider remote 1 great great gandparent on ones side of teh family) and still feel Irish because that identity was preserved within their environment therefore it is difficult to exclude them - I think at the very minimum there should be verifiable evidnece that somone in their ancestral heritage came from Ireland. An example of this is Mohammed Ali - one great grandfather came from Ennis County Clare - does this make him Irish-American? - Superficiously - yes - but does he feel Irish? I don't think so but because of clear lineage he should be on the list. Researchers can determine what entries they wish to pursue - quite often it is those latter people who are the more interesting because their Irishness may not be common knowledge and much of the value these entries have to for instance; journalists or academics doing serious work to use as examples of how the Irish have succeeded in America so someone like Ali presents a more interesting or unique slant around issues such as the Irish Diaspora rather than extolling the virtues of Irish beauty, charm, wit etc etc that often permiate St Patrick's Day journalism we all Know that Maureen O'Hara, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Grace Kelly etc etc were Irish Americans and reading it over and over in numerous publications can become boring but the wider issue for the users of thsi list is to lay-out how this remote Irishness has influenced the person's success that is more of a challenge and ultimately more interesting. Of course as with all these type of lists - they are seen as a "badge of honor" for the entrants and can also contribute to study and analysis - e.g how has their Irishness influenced them? Are their ethnic traits or predisposition responsible for their fame - e.g. Maureen O'Hara was/is as famous for being Irish if not more so than as an actress - infact her Irishness may be more well known than her extensive film career, however the ethnic identity in some cases goes hand-in-hand with the accomplishment for which they are noted and could be a career initself for soem people. I don't think the list is about the subjective issues such as "do they consider themselves Irish everyday or just on St Patrick's day" The reality is that identity is not something that you are conscious of every day and usually needs something to trigger it and St Patrick's Day may be the trigger that some people need once a year to remind them - others may be triggered more often and by other stimulants such as a trip to Ireland, or an image, a memory, a song etc but for the most part Irish-American identity is not challenged if the individual can at least elaborate on it e.g. they know where in Ireland they originated - in my experience the only Irish Americans not accpted by Irish born people are those that do not know anything about Ireland, Irish history, Irish culture, Irish language etc etc. They are not concerned with how close or remote the actual blood connection is if the individual can demonstrate an affinity founded on real knowledge and mutual understanding and this usually does not occur unless the individual "feels Irish". There is nothing more offensive that an American claiming to be "oirish" that has no idea about what that means.145.229.156.40 11:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely I agree. Some people with remote Irish ancestry feel Irish and refer to themselves as such, or are referred to as such by others, which is perfectly fine for inclusion, and in fact helps weed them out from all the others with the remote ancestry. Mad Jack 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - For lists to be justified they should do something that categories do not; have added value. These lists do. They are mostly fully sourced with additional information. TerriersFan 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the original creator of the List of Irish-American mobsters (as well as Jewish-American and British mobsters) I was suprised to find the list had been created. I would suggest the article be merged to List of Irish-American mobsters, as the article follows naming convention and is the older of the two list. MadMax 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - CrazyRougeian talk/email 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince[edit]

WP is not a crystal ball. This article is not encyclopedic.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obsolete crystal-balling, belongs on a fansite or something. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Alias Flood 17:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is pure speculation, which is not allowed, and the book has already been released for like a year! (11987 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. - Tapir Terrific 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Not a crystal ball, speculation  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - How many times does this need to go up for AfD? -- 9cds(talk) 19:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of the matter is that it only managed to survive those 3 AFDs because it was first nominated around the time of the release of the book, and supoort had come because of all the hype. The subsequent AFDs passed because most people cited the fact that the first AFD resulted in keep. However, it's been nearly a year since it was last nominated, and I don't feel that the precedence factor should hold true.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the dates - it was last nominated around 2 months ago :) -- 9cds(talk) 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...with most people calling for a merge or a delete, none of which were carried out.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the person who closed that last debate was someone on the Harry Potter wikiproject, and it should have been closed as "no consensus", not "not delete because the obvious consensus is not to delete". So this AfD is indeed valid. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And i would like to add that the book has already been released, so the whole page is POINTLESS. (11987 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - CrazyRougeian talk/email 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Øyvind Eikrem[edit]

This person has a Norwegian PhD in social anthropology, but no citations in the literature, and otherwise no noteworthy contributions towards being listed in Wikipedia. The entry on his thesis supervisor Stein Erik Johansen has also been nominated for deletion (not by me), but he likewise has no citations and little notability. If Stein Erik Johansen is not notable, then this person certainly isn't. Both entries are simple translations from the Norwegian wikipedia by Øyvind Eikrem himself (see no:Øyvind Eikrem and no:Stein Erik Johansen) and Øyvind Eikrem's entry has been proposed for deletion at the Norwegian wikipedia. Janbrogger 14:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Thanks for the detailed nomination of someone working in a field and language that many Wikipedians will find hard to assess for notability.
    (For future reference, you should probably remove {{prod}} templates when AfDing an article; it makes the prod redundant.) — Haeleth Talk 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Alias Flood 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The real test here is WP:PROFTEST. And regardless of who did what when and why (below), I can't really verifiably see how this person meets that. Grandmasterka 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on bias[edit]

Some caution seems prudent about possible bias on the part of Janbrogger and his relation to Øyvind Eikrem. Brogger is the son of Jan Brøgger – a Norwegian professor of social anthropology and a clinical psychologist who died in February of this year. Eikrem is also a Norwegian philosopher, clinical psychologist, and social anthropologist. Eikrem has edited the article on the Norwegian Wikipedia about Janbrogger's father (they both have the name "Jan Brøgger") and the corresponding article on English Wikipedia was created by Eikrem.

It should be noted that Eikrem only has two out of a total 24 edits on the Norwegian no:Jan Brøgger article. More importantly, the content of Eikrem's edits introduced undocumented information about Jan Brøgger (sr.) being a controversial figure in Norwegian public discourse. I will take the liberty of translating the paragraph that must have appeared contentious to Jan Brøgger jr. as he proceeded to delete it in consecutive edit citing violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability (the English WP policy guideline as Norwegian WP doesn't currently have this) and WP:NPOV (Norwegian version):

Apart from his work as professor, Jan C. Brøgger was well-known in public discourse. He often took side asserting unpopular views, and his entire life he polemicized strongly in favor of his views on the role of the family as the supporting institution in society and against authoritarian movements (particularly on the left side of poltics).

It is curious that Jan Christian Brøgger jr. being a physician should happen to step forward to assert a lack of notability warranting the removal from Wikipedia an article about a humanities scholar who just happened to hold the same credentials as his father and who had inserted information about his father in a (Norwegian) Wikipedia article that Brøgger jr. took offense to. __meco 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

First, to put it all in perspective, please not that the entry for Stein Erik Johansen, the PhD thesis advisor for Øyvind Eikrem, was nominated independently for removal by a Wikipedia editor who has >5000 edits with an interest in the same fields. After this, I nominated Øyvind Eikrem for deletion. If his thesis advisor is not notable, clearly his never-cited student is not notable.
Now, to bias. The edit given above is completely incorrect. The paragraph above has been retained. The paragraph that I edited out was a different one, and was removed because it was POV and unsourced. Later my edit was commended by a Norwegian social anthropologist and other respondents (see the Norwegian discussion page). In the discussion page, I stated that while the viewpoints were interesting and might have some relation to actual fact, Wikipedia is not the place to start a discussion over the contributions of a deceased researcher, without sources (official Wikipedia policy WP:OR). With sources, it would be a different matter. As a matter of fact, I have found and entered sources for other controversial statements in this biography. I don't object to negative attention, it is just that unsupported personal opinion should not be prominent in a biography (or really any kind of unsourced slant in any direction). The actual paragraph removed was (my translation):
"Brøggers position in Norwegian anthropology was disputed. On the one hand he was given a lot of attention in public, but on the other hand he was not well regarded - at least not within the scholarly community nationally."
I happen to know Øyvind Eikrem because we went to the same school, and thus took an interest. I would not have noticed his entry if he hadn't edited Jan Brøgger's entry on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but that is the way of things. I've proceeded to take up to discussion on the Norwegian Wikipedia signpost the criteria for lexical notability, and a majority of respondents thought that simply a PhD and a clinical degree isn't sufficiently notable - especially without any citations or media attention. Some on the Norwegian Wikipedia hold that being elected to county office or getting a PhD is sufficient for notability, which means >500 new Norwegian PhD entries and 2000 county office entries per year - nearly impossible, but they are a minority. It should be noted that all respondents favored deleting the Norwegian Wikipedia entry on Øyvind Eikrem. If it is deleted there because of no notability, clearly it does not belong here. This nomination for deletion is clearly consistent with the Wikipedia person notability criteria (cant link directly to Notability:People.
I've contributed to some Norwegian and English Wikipedia pages over the last year (within my scientific field or personal interests). The debate between inclusions and deletionists has not yet been concluded. But it is my policy that all articles I contribute to should be properly sourced, and this will be borne out by my contributions. Also note that I do not consider myself notable enough for a Norwegian or English Wikipedia entry, even though I have >10 papers in the international literature and have been cited >60 times internationally, including in the The British Medical Journal and editorial comment in the Quarterly Journal of Medicine, Thorax, European Respiratory Journal, and International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. If this entry is retained, perhaps I should reconsider.
I thus stand by my nomination for deletion, and hold that it is unbiased and criterion-based, not based on personal animosity. However, I've come to appreciate the debate between inclusionists and deletionists. WP is not paper, and if there is some support for retaining this entry, by all means do. However, I predict that it is only going to be edited by the author or his friends (probably anonymous edits). Time will show. -- Janbrogger 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rest somewhat assured. I did translate the wrong paragraph, which I'm glad to see has been rectified. However, I would have been even more happy to have seen Janbrogger present a full disclosure at the time of nominating for deletion that this could raise questions regarding his neutral point of view. __meco 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - CrazyRougeian talk/email 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulosity Quotient[edit]

Was put up for speedy deletion for having no sources to speak of and apparently being original research. I switched it to PROD, which the creator removed. So now here we are... For the moment, I'm neutral. -- SCZenz 12:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable neologism with 25 unique Google hits. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First draft said "This term was coined August 12, 1998 by Wray Curtis..." and was posted by WrayCurtis. Only Ghits are mirror and one webpage by the same name -which may or may not be connected. It was me who listed it as speedy. --Richhoncho 12:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I'd looked at the first draft, I might have just speedied it. This is a case where following the letter of the law creates a lot of trouble, but I do prefer to interpret the speedy rules literally lest we lose good stuff by accident. -- SCZenz 12:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richhoncho. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- SCZenz
  • Speedy Delete If user made up a word, the word will almost never qualify. -- Tdslappy
  • Non-speedy Delete (or WP:BJ) My NQ on reading this article is 170. Speediable begins at 185. ~ trialsanderrors 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism of no notability. -- Alias Flood 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richhoncho. HumbleGod 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR --Satori Son 07:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My speedy limit is somewhere between 125-150, but this is lower than that. Obviously made up and not notable. Grandmasterka 03:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contains virtually no content. But if anyone wants to improve it, be my guest. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Operation Northwoods[edit]

Personal essay having no notable relevance either on its own or on related pages. This user had been contributing similar material on other articles, and having been spurned, decided to create his own page to muse. --TJive 11:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics of Oil Nationalization[edit]

As the title suggests, this is a personal essay. The user was attempting to insert this same information into the main Chavez article, which User:172 called a "POV soapbox". He was correct, and this page should be removed as well. --TJive 11:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish communists[edit]

This entry, stated by indefinitely banned trouble-maker JJstroker (talk · contribs), is inherently problematic. The page will likely attract anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi POV-pushers, who argue that there is some sort of a connection between Communism and Judaism. Moreover, classifying who is a Jew is often a difficult judgment call outside the competence of Wikipedia editors. For example, Karl Marx, who is listed on the page, is a paradigmatic example of the difficulty of determining who is a Jew. Marx’s family converted to Lutheranism; and, later in life, Marx, like many communists, rejected organized religion. Strong delete. 172 | Talk 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete contains all of seven people, most of whom are better described as "of Jewish ancestry" rather than simply "Jewish". There's no corresponding List of Christian communists, List of atheist communists (for consistency, would that be coextensive with List of communists?), etc. - nor is there a need for them. Opabinia regalis 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - the list was a stub, indeed, so I added a few very influential: Rosa Luxemburg, Marek Edelman, Ernest Mandel, Ygael Gluckstein, Jesus Christ (more will follow). It is still a stub, but that is no reason to delete it, is it? ActiveSelective 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Active: Could you explain to the peanut gallery exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that Jesus Christ belongs on the List of Jewish communists? Since when does Christianity = Communism? I must be missing something, right? Hmm, it must have been the day I missed that liberation theology lecture on "Kermit the Frog is a communist" ("frogs of the world unite -- before you croak!") and thus he is a very vulnerable "Jewish" frog. IZAK 10:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, Christ isn't communist in my perception. Nevertheless, (1) the phrase that "Christ was the first communist" is quite a common - whether I like it or not. (2) Liberation theology is indeed a good argument for adding the name (with some reserve) (3) The term 'communism' is not only used for modern-day Communism since Karl Marx. For example, there is also Primitive communism. (4) The prominent leader Karl Kautsky wrote a long article on Christianity and compared Christ's ideology to that of communisms. You see, many reasons not to ignore the connection laid down by many people - even though it is not my personal opinion. ActiveSelective 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Active: The problem with all this stuff is that it is not mainstream and until such time as it's accepted by the mainstream churches this type of "information" will always run afoul of WP:NOR and hardly ever be fit to be NPOV. You know, Jesus lived so long ago you can call him anything you like, but that does mean it's valid to do so. Communism is associated with the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and it is doubtful that Jesus could or should be placed in the company of such modern-day figures. Why is it that there is this desire to connect anything significant to the Jews when the Jews and Judaism utterly reject such connections on their behalf? IZAK 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it's hard for me to defend an opinion that is not mine. But I think the argument goes something like this: the vision of communism is a classless and egalitarian society; communists are for the redistribution of wealth and organizing social security. A particular communist zionist movement organized kibutzim. It is not all that different from a Jesus who chases the rich out of the temple, shares bread and fish, and says the poor will be taken up in heaven and the rich should first share. ActiveSelective 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, I think that nails it, it is not more controversial to classify Jesus as a Communist than as a Jew, and it's hard to argue that he was not a Jew... I of course think of Jesus first as a Jewish Pacifist, which is hard to reconcile with Communism on one level because of the call for revolution, but if that revolution can come without bloodshed... //// Pacific PanDeist * 08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Example: Christian communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. / For more examples, see Religious communism. ActiveSelective 08:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone is a stealth Jew! JEW! JEWSSS!!! Danny Lilithborne 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment If anyone is as initially confused by Danny's link, it's to a page that makes fun of a genuine(ly appalling) website, namely [1]. If you have a strong stomach, check out the author's comments on 9-11. --Dweller 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC) -[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a useful list. -Will Beback 05:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is impossible to imagine that this will ever turn into an academic, reliable encyclopedia article, especially on any kind of Wiki. RK 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You're very right anti-semites have no business here or anywhere, and therefore your warning is a valuable addition to the pages and talk pages. Not oposing that, the combination of the two subjects (the love-hate-relationship of Communism-and-Judaism and the Jewish communists caught in the middle) remains a very interesting object of study since it is connected to many questions in history and politics; it is just like the similar complicated love-hate-relationship of Judaism-and-Zionism (see Jews against zionism). Why did the people of one of the most backward countries in the world, and certainly the most anti-semite country, chose Trotsky (and other Jews) among their communist leaders? How very different where the personal and political fights of these particular communists against racism from outside, isolation from inside, opposing the zionist racism? Jewish communists have a very interesting history of their own no other Jew or communist has. Rather than deleting this list in order to prevent possible abuse (call it pre-emptive deletion) and thereby also preventing any normal use, I would suggest: (1) to add your warnings to the pages. (2) also to start an article on why it is difficult to determine who is a Jew and who not. How the term "Jew" changed during history from its original religious meaning to a new racial meaning and all the confusion and abuse inbetween? Then a "list of non-Jewish Jews" as illutration? ActiveSelective 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the topic somewhat interesting as well, as a historian who is of Jewish background. Still, as Wikipedia:Relevance instructs us, just because a topic is interesting does not mean it is encyclopedic. The object of study you describe is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, as it is not Wikipedia's place to decide on the difficult question of who happens to be a Jew. (Religious affiliation is one criterion, but it does not apply to the bulk of 'Jewish' Communists, who, like Karl Marx, did not practice Judaism.) Thus, I cannot imagine this page continuing to exist within the framework of Wikipedia's content guidelines. 172 | Talk 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) Well, I've seen many well written articles on problematic subjects. Atheist authors and believers cooperated on the Existence of god article, not deciding whether God exists or not, but displaying the whole spectrum of arguments evenly. With similar caution the different interpretations of the word "Jew" can be described. (2) Also, the list of terrorists is about who is 'generally considered' as such, and the list of humanists is about people who 'self-identify' as such - whether they are or not is thereby left out of the question. The perception of them being so is an important real power in itself. Likewise, Karl Marx is generally considered being 'Jewish' even though he wasn't religious. So, it means we should choose our words carefully here, indeed. We must also reference to the article Who is a Jew?. ActiveSelective 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not just a problematic subject, but a problematic list. Just about every entry on the list would be a POV judgment call. Your own addition, Jesus Christ - according to some interpretations a communist Jew, in particular, raised eyebrows. 172 | Talk 08:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Tdxiang 06:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - ActiveSelective does make some valid points I'd heard before (not from anti-Semites, which I am not). With reservations because of the obvious target, but would prefer to "be bold" with articles. If the list isn't fleshed out with more substance and discussions of this unique political/religious subset in due time, though, I'd likely change my vote. HumbleGod 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (I like Jesus Christ as the #2 Jewish Communist abakharev 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus Christ - according to some interpretations a communist Jew I missed that line earlier. Yeah, this article ought to go. 172 | Talk 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jesus and indiscriminate nature of list. What's next - list of redhaired wide receivers? - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned, this 'list' was compiled by a previous troublemaker, and is likely just another joke of his. There are only so many Communists in the world and whether or not they are Jewish or are of Jewish ancestry is entirely irrelevant unless they say otherwise. On a more personal note, this strikes me as an attempt to black-list Leon Trotsky, a human being I have much respect for (this comment withstanding bias). Black-Velvet 08:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and indeed everyone else. Surprising this page has lasted this long. David | Talk 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this very clumsily written list. It's in fact a misnomer to say "Jewish communists" as this article implies quite blatantly that it's somehow one's "Jewish-ness" (implying a connection to Judaism as well) that has anything to do with being or becoming a "Jewish communist." This is similar to claims by communists that it is "Jewish capitalists" or "Jewish financiers" who are behind the world's ills. Then there is the claim that there is "Jewish racism" versus the power of "Jewish liberalism". So its "Jewish-this and Jewish-that" and it's all quite meaningless. This madness can go on and on unless it is stopped, and now is as a good a time as any to do so. Perhaps a better title may have been Communists of Jewish descent or The role of Jews in the history of Communism written in a very delicate and professional manner, but as this article stands it is nowhere near that. IZAK 09:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rename is fine. More info in the article is definitely very very welcome. However, I do not see how the article determines communism to be a Jewish thing. People become communist by chosing, whatever their religious or ethnical background. Likewise, you're not seriously considering List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners to be about 'Winners of the Jewish Nobel Prize', are you? ActiveSelective 10:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Active: I do not like any lists or categories of Jews. At one time I thought some moderate lists were ok, but things have gotten out of control on Wikipedia with all kinds of crazy lists growing every day (see Category:Lists of Jews). See my views about any lists or categories of Jews at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Wikipedia is NOT Jew Watch and should not be inadvertantly aping it. IZAK 11:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Very valid topic but very bad form. --TJive 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a general principle, we shouldn't be making lists of members of ethnic group-by-ideology. However, per IZAK, I think there would be room in Wikipedia for a careful article along the lines of The Communist Party and African-Americans.--Pharos 10:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, per above keeps. ShaunES 10:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I often ignore articles about Jews when there are similar articles about other groups. There aren't any communist lists focusing on Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists. Obviously another anti-semitic attempt to skew the Wiki against Jews. --Yodamace1 11:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV bait Kuratowski's Ghost 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherent POV risk, pointless list (an article on Jewish communists would fare much better). Also: why does it presently lists socialists, labour activists, feminists? And what is the point in listing books? JFW | T@lk 12:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we already have lists of jewish politicians, so why single out Communism?--Brownlee 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV and to properties that are about as unrelated as things get. - Mgm|(talk) 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article explaing the relationship between Jews and Communism (ie zionism etc) is one thing, but a list of Jewish communist has no meaning. Jon513 12:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - these "list of Jewish xxx" have got to go. --Leifern 12:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kuratowski's Ghost --Ioannes Pragensis 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per most of the above. I'm not sure this deserves inclusion. After all why not include a list of socialist zoroastrians if the above deserves entry. Amists 13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's nearly as hard to decide who's a communist as it is to decide who's a jew! jnothman talk 13:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WING --Shirahadasha 14:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia need not foster or revive the Jewish-Communist conspiracy fetish. Dauster 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I would also oppose a list of Catholic fascists. The conceptual frame for both is one that amplifies historic stereotyping while obscuring encyclopedic content. These--and similar diads involving a religion and an object of scorn--need to be enclosed within broader discussions in order to minimize their use by bigots by placing the discussion in a detailed and nuanced context. This is the approach at Neofascism_and_religion that helped calm down edit wars and exploitation by bigots. In addition, the underlying assumption of the existing entry is that Jews appear to be a biological or genetic concept, rather than a religion and ethnicity with a wide range of forms. Some of the people listed clearly walked away from both the religion and the ethnicity. What is left is the non-existant racial or biological "Jew"--the core concept of Hitler. Wikipedia should avoid taxonomies favored by the Nazis. The page looks just like dozens of others I have studies...on neonazi websites. Same claims. Same list. Same echos.--Cberlet 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no point in having a list when the communists in question are described on individual pages. -- Owoc 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and jnothman. --Metropolitan90 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this crap. Antisemites are always trying to ascribe everything evil to Jews, not the least pernicious association of which is this particular one. A study of Jews in the history of communism might be worthwhile, such as the article The role of Jews in the history of Communism that IZAK mentions, but that article ain't this one. The only possible use for this article is if it's gutted and restarted to cover the epithet of Jews as Communists, but that clearly was not the purpose of this article, nor do I see anyone volunteering to write one up...regardless, the present article should not be preserved in the history of such an article should it ever be written. Tomertalk 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Opabinia regalis and CrazyRussian. Non-encycopedic listcruft that violates WP:POV. Agent 86 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should be noted that Walter Benjamin, a German-Jewish philosopher, theorized, albeit in very oblique terms, a connection between Dialectical materialism (the philosophical core of Marxism) and Jewish mysticism. However, this list does not explore this issue. As many have pointed out, many of those listed can only be determined as either Jewish or communist loosely, if at all. Moreover, Jesus was not a communist, for much the same reason as why the Sumerians were not Christian: namely, it's utterly anachronistic. Communism specifically stipulates its own emergence in the process of history; therefore it makes little sense to call someone who lived two millenia ago a Communist. --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, per ActiveSelective's justification. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. -- Alias Flood 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. -- Runcorn 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (with apologies to comrade Jesus) --IslaySolomon 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This just screams POV PLAYGROUND and would take some serious surveillance effort from editors who probably aren't all too interested in keeping the list to not attract all kinds of Wikirabble. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pharos. There's a way to deal with this topic, but a list isn't it. Ziggurat 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a look at the article and three questions came to mind. (1.) Are there many lists of communists by ethncity and lists of communists by religion and if so for which ethnicities and religions do such lists exist? (2.) Isn't there a lot of tension between communism (as an ideology) and the sectoralism of non-national identities as well as between communism and religion? (3.) If such tension does exist, how well can this be covered in a list? Regards, gidonb 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good questions. Let me first say that I didn't start the 'article' (it seems to be done by someone with not so best intentions) but I did try to make it into something more decent yesterday. So I might not be able to answer everything as good:
      1. You can type in "american communists" and wikipedia gives you the CPUSA party. You can type in "german communists" and wikipedia gives you SED party. Etcetera. Etcetera. However, when you type in "jewish communists", wikipedia does not give an article about a Jewish communist party. We cannot refer to a Jewish communist party since there existed none (or not for long) in history, so we can and must refer to a list of Jewish individuals (Leon Davidovitsh Bronstein / Leon Trotsky was a very prominent example). (* Comment - Israeli party Hadash made up of the Communist Party of Israel remnant of the Communist Party of Palestine --TheYmode 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
      2. The difficult debate about the definition of "Jew" (religion, ethnicity, race, culture, etc. etc.) is dealt with already in the article Who is a Jew? Therefore this list starts with: This page is a list of people identified as Jews, either by themselves or by others. "Jewishness" has the meanings both of "adherence to the religion of Judaism" and "membership in the ethnic group 'Jews'. People of both groups are listed here. By other criteria, these people may be listed under other nationalities as well. See: Who is a Jew? This warning is copied from other Lists of Jews. See List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners, for example. So Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg are considered "Jew" because of ancestry.
      3. There are many forms of "communism": it is the vision of an egalitarian society, it is also the communist movement for social change, even distribution of wealth and social security. So communism is not necessarily bad. It is also the good/bad legacy of communist individuals, the party bureaucracy, etc. There are pre-Marx communisms: Primitive communism. There are combinations with religion: Christian communism and Religious communism. So, why would being Jewish (religiously or ethnically) and being communist then be impossible?
      4. Communism has its distinct tactics and strategies against anti-Semitism, through workers unions, and workers revolt, "workers across the world, unite!" etc. However, no other communists but Jewish communists were the direct victims of anti-Semitism. This makes this group especially interesting: 1. no other communist but Jewish communists had the "inside" view of being direct victims, 2. and no other Jew but the communist Jews were trying these communist strategies against anti-Semitism. Their views and position are unique, special, interesting, and valuable. That's why I also added the articles on "The Jewish Question" (the old name for fighting against anti-Semitism) in which they describe their strategies against anti-Semitism. ActiveSelective 08:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There is already an article on Jewish Communism, it's just called by its Hebrew name...see kibbutz. Tomertalk 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You are partly right. The Kibbutz movement was communist, indeed. However, it was only one particular form of communism. The majority of Jewish communists were on odd terms with the Kibbutz commies. They'd rather fight in the country they lived, loved and worked in, than move away into hiding somewhere near Jerusalem. See for example my super hero Marek Edelman: he fought the nazis (Warsaw Ghetto Rising) and after WWII the Stalinist dictatorship (Solidarinosc). You see, there is still need for such an article. ActiveSelective 01:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I would be inclined to agree with you iff you could show me non-antisemitic sources that demonstrate that there's something about their Jewishness that serves as a source of commonality for Jewish communists. The point is, as others have pointed out here and elsewhere previously, Jewish mensheviks had more in common with other Russian communists (and with the kibbutzniqim) than they did with Marek Edelman and his ilk or Arthur Koestler and his ilk. Tomertalk 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per (far) above -Seidenstud 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic. I also reject the nom's bizarre speculation regarding neo-nazism and anti-semitism. Those sort of scare tactics have no place on AfD. --JJay 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strictly on grounds of lack of verification. If sources were added that these people were indeed Jewish and communist, I would opine keep instead. I agree with JJay as well, speculation as to what sort of editors an article will attract is completely irrelevant to an AfD discussion. POV pushing is to be dealt with by editing, not deletion.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, too overly specific, will definately be a troll magnet. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced this is a useful or verifiable list. There doesn't seem to be any point in connecting the two. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are lists of other communists by ethnicity, then Jewish shouldn't be the sole exception. I don't think the subject list refers to Judaiam = Jewish religion, but Jewish ethno-centrism within the larger context of the period, and in that context the anti-Russian, anti-czar activities of early Bolsheviks could be explored, and many of the leaders were indeed of Jewish ethnicity. Karl Marx was an ethnic Jew too, was he not? Is there a reason to deny this information from the reader?Yukirat 06:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, as has been discussed numerous times, "Jewish ethnocentrism" (see also here and background for that here) is an equally offensive epithet favored by antisemites... Tomertalk 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jewish is an ethnicity and a religion, it cannot be neither. Thanks. The Bolshevik leaders weren't religious, but they were still ethnically Jewish. It wasn't used an an "epithet".Yukirat 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Their leaders weren't religious, to be certain, and they were ethnically Jewish, and I think it's pretty bizarre that no mention of the fact that what caused them to storm out of the Congress where they became dubbed as "mensheviks" was in response to the excessively antisemitic remarks (which would have made Göbbels proud) made by the "bolsheviks" is never mentioned in either menshevik or bolshevik... That notwithstanding, there are two things you mention here, both of which are easily refutable wrt the usefulness of this category. (1) "Jewish" is both an ethnicity and a religion, to be sure, but that's not really relevant to anything anyone's said here in arguing against the usefulness of this category... the problem is that there is nothing demonstrable about their Jewishness that makes these Communists' Jewishness notable, as such. If it were "ethnicity" that were important, then Karl Marx should be included as in Category:German communists since his family was originally from Germany, Category:Christian communists and/or Category:Lutheran communists since he was raised as a Lutheran Christian and Category:English communists or Category:British communists since he lived most of his life in England and Category:White communists (since he was white). The fact that his father [I've never seen anyone presentation of evidence that his mother was Jewish] is irrelevant since he's [if his mother wasn't Jewish] not Jewish according to halakha, but that notwithstanding, his father's [and even his mother's, if she was Jewish] Jewish ancestry is rendered allthemore irrelevant, at least inasmuch as the merits of this category are concerned, because of his father's and family's conversion to Lutheranism while he was still young (if he was even born yet...our article on him doesn't discuss even when his father converted to Lutheranism), and because at no time in his life is there any record that Marx even once identified himself, even in an effort to openly disparage his "bourgeoisie" ancestry, as "Jewish". On the other point (2), the business about "Jewish ethnocentrism" I was referring to, is the indisputable fact that the phrase "Jewish ethnocentrism" is used almost exclusively as an epithet by antisemites. The assertion of "ethnocentrism", vis-à-vis the Jews, generally is tangled up in a grotesquely mangled misperception about the meaning of "Jews as a chosen people", which always ends up coming out as an indictment against the Jews of such "crimes" as "exclusivity", "aloofness", "superiority-complex", etc. [which generally describe the claimants of "ethnocentrism" far better than they've ever described Jews...but when these people suffer from a severe inferiority complex coupled with poor education, there's no accounting for the illogic they'll come up with to support their conspiracy theories...] That notwithstanding, the assertion that it was "Jewish ethno-centrism" that made communism attractive or naturally compatible with Judaism as you imply, is a non-sequitur on two fronts...not only did the early communists-who-happened-to-be-Jews not suffer any sort of "Jewish ethno-centrism", they in fact eschewed any signs of ethno-centrism (and reserved their most venemous vitriol for observant Jews), but also the idea that they had some sort of "Jewish ethno-centrism" is utterly erroneous since, as you yourself acknowledge, they didn't identify with Judaism at all! The only thing that made them Jewish was their ancestry, and that ancestry played no significant rôle whatsoever in their communist ideology. TIA. Tomertalk 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
>> Yukarit, the supposed "ethnocentrism" is nonsensical and racist. You neither listened to Tomer an TShilo's arguments, nor read anything about / written by these communists. And I don't think the way you'd like to see this article go, is gonna be my way too.
>> TShilo12, Tomer, Gidonb, et al, even though I think an article on Jewish Communists is legitimate and can be well written, I am very pleased to see the overwhelming number of people voting 'delete' here. It shows that editors are vigilent against any possible anti-Semitism. Although it is blocking the article, the knee-jerk automatism ("Jewish? Communism? Oh no, it must be anti-Semitism!") is a good first reaction. But think about it twice: Yes, the combination 'Jew' and 'Communism' has been abused many times by anti-Semites, but does that mean we need to give in to their nasty POV?
Communists were internationalists calling for workers of all backgrounds to unite against an economical system of exploitation -- an international workers victory. They were not "anti-Russian", not "Jewish ethnocentrist", nor "anti-Semite". Just like the French non-Jewish communist Emile Zola was one of the few to defend Alfred Dreyfus, so were the Russian communists defending Jewish and Christian minorities against the Tsarist pogroms. In the most anti-Semite country in the world, the Russian communist movement voted (among others) for Jews to lead them.
However, communism has a different side too. There is a difficulty with the word 'communism' which is almost analogous to the difficulty of the word 'Jewish'. In history new meanings have been added and now there are several communisms like there are several ways of being considered 'Jewish'. The name has been long abused by Stalinist powers for the exact opposite: anti-internationalism (because of economic competition with foreign economies), anti-worker (because of exploitation of the working class), anti-Semite (in order to divert attention). To put it plainly: Stalinism is anti-communism. That's why he had Trotsky, Old Bolsheviks (of whom many were Jews) and their followers killed in The Great Purge (the Stalinist Counter-Revolution). The whole sharade was wrapped in red banners and portraits of Marx, but Marx, communism and Communist Jews obviously had nothing to do with that kind of 'communism'.
Again, what legitimizes an article on Jewish Communists is that they were singled out on many occasions by anti-Semites. Because they were singled out so often and so harshly, they had a unique position as Jews among communists and as communists among Jews. They had unique experiences and strategies of fighting against anti-Semitism. Other communists and Jews did not have both. They have written down their valuable lessons (see List). What makes these valuable is not that they were 'religiously Jewish' (most were not), nor that 'race' should somehow be of importance (it should not!). What makes their lives and lessons valuable is that they were forced by the historical circumstances (by anti-Semitism and by social change) to become the unique combination of experiences and to do something about these circumstances. Not the Jewishness-in-itself played a role in becoming communist, but the being a direct victim of anti-Semitism that was haunting your 'Jewishness' was. (We could name it "List of Communists haunted by anti-Semitism because of their ancestry" but that would be a bit strange). It would be a waste to ignore this in an encyclopidia.
Yes, I do also think a longer article "history of Jews and Communism" is better than just a list of individuals and their works. No doubt in my mind this list will be deleted. A massive numbers voted against - that's good and sad at the same time. Still, we have to start somewhere. ActiveSelective 11:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ActiveSelective: I think you'll find that pretty much everyone who's voted "delete" would be perfectly content to see an article such as Role of Jews in the history of communism or History of Jews and communism. The problem with this article [i.e., this "List of..."] is that, as a list, it makes no room for actual discussion of the rôle Jews played in the development of communist ideologies, nor is there any room for coverage of the fate of Jews living under communist régimes. As I mentioned earlier, there is such a thing as "Jewish communism", and it's covered briefly at kibbutz. As you mention above, Jews (among other groups) suffered horribly under Stalin's "communism"...when you talked about the goal of communism as the deshackling of workers worldwide, that's true, but Stalin's communism wasn't as "anti-communist" as you describe it...instead it was bolshevik philosophy in action (the masses are too dumb to "do communism" themselves), indeed the very philosophy that the mensheviks had so vehemently rejected. Anyways...I think this discussion, if it goes much further, should prolly be moved to the talkpage... Cheers, Tomertalk 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per answers of ActiveSelective above. Yes, he does try to make something out of an extremely problematic (if not bashing) list, but, as his answers illustrate, it is a unique list among among non-national ethnicities and religious groups. It seems unique even among nationalities! Perhaps this is not without reason. A list is not the correct form to deal with the deep conflicts between communism, (non-national) ethnicity and religion. Instead I would recommend a history of Jews and communism article, which would include the intellectual and other contributions to communism, the Jewish and Arab-Jewish communist movements in Israel/Palestine and the long history of Soviet policies and practicies with respect to and against Jews and Judaism. gidonb 10:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia needs this like it needs a list of toasters that are available in stainless steel. RedNitrogen 03:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per gidonb. P.S. didn't knew Jesus Christ was a commie... --TheYmode 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primarily per nom. This is a largely indiscriminate collection of information with an unclear definition of inclusion: Pointing to Who is a Jew? is not helpful for defining who should be included in this list, because, well, its an open question. This list presents a question without an answer to me, which is its fatal problem. Grandmasterka 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per gidonb. Pecher Talk 14:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or extremely weak merge - Extremely problematic article, possible POV fork, and the content is better discussed in other places. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is this fascination with communism and Jews? List is unhelpfull. Categorise by profession please, not by beliefs or political affiliations (or both like this case). --Cat out 20:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StealthBot[edit]

  • Delete Delete not Notable and does not show any significance to the subject.(IIIV 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This user's confirmed sockpuppets have been strike and colored below. Kevin_b_er 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete does not claim notability unless bein threatened under the DMCA is notable (no wait we've all been there). --Pboyd04 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not claim notability.(FR-Altas 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete not notable, only link is to a request for money page. -- MrDolomite 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. (24.60.161.63 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as it fails software guidelines. Besides, it's non-natable.--Tdxiang 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Unique downloads for version 2.5 number over 27,000 since its release," - Hah! 27000?! Not quite enough to warrant a 'Pedia article. Black-Velvet 08:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Shaun Eccles-Smith 10:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Black-Velvet. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - unworthy of own article -- Alias Flood 18:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires[edit]

NOTE - at least two users suspect sockpuppetry at play here by the original deletion suggester. Please see the comments below, a checkuser request has been made: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser. Gsd2000 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/XGustaX are tagged now. XGustaX, FR-Altas, Celto, Forhonor, and IIIV. Kevin_b_er 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has been discussed before and still hass no sources. I say delete it .On top of that it pretty obvious the author abandoned it and has a POV.(IIIV 02:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article openly questions the validity of the website it's citing as its main source! --NMChico24 02:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article essentially shoots itself in the foot. Abandoned, and not NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article clearly questions the validity of the webite its citing as its main source, Clearly has a POV and has been Abandoned by its Author. (FR-Altas 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia. Could you explain exactly what the POV is ? Megapixie 05:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed the AfD subst tag on the page - this discussion is the second nomination and should be indicated as such. SM247My Talk 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verification and substantial work was not carried out since last nominated, so throw it in the bin until somebody can revive it properly. SM247My Talk 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: these claims are false. The diff from the end of the last nomination to the start of this one is here. How can you say that "no" verification has been carried out, when in fact the only references in the article were added since the last nomination? How can you say that no "substantial work" has been carried out, when in fact the article was expanded to twenty times its previous size since the last nomination? Please verify your facts before making misleading claims. — Haeleth Talk 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete questionable source -- MrDolomite 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has NOT been abandoned - see the edit history. It does state sources - however they are not good sources - we should leave the {{verify}} tag in place. At least one other article cites the webpage in question Mongol Empire, and the numbers in the linked empire articles which do not cite the webpage appear to match up, suggesting (though not proving) the numbers are taken from a good print source. I don't see how this can be POV - can someone enlighten me/explain ? Sure it needs some work (which appears to be ongoing) - but does it really need to be deleted ? Megapixie 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Source is questionable and clearly does not have a NPOV. Author abandoned article and article kills it self.(Celto 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia. Would you care to explain what the POV in this article actually is ? Megapixie 05:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, like how the main source is questioned openly to be wrong.POV stands for Point of View.(Celto 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I think you are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:Verify. An inaccurate source doesn't make it POV - remember wikipedia is about verifability not truth. I agree that the source isn't a good one - but I believe good ones could be found. Megapixie 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1 1st Afd ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Is it coincidence that we have three four editors with slight edit histories that all use the same manner of signing off? ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found this to be interesting, surely some way can be found to verify all of the information, which looks about right to me (me being not an historian, though).

//// Pacific PanDeist * 06:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article "being interesting", is not a valid reason to keep it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Pacific PanDeist.--Tdxiang 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also per Pacific PanDeist. HumbleGod 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve and verify (some current countries are larger than the smallest empire mentioned, thus making e.g. the Belgian "empire" (i.e. Belgium + Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi) fit for inclusion). Fram 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can be improved. It will need a lot of verification, but the fact that there is contention over the sources (read the discussion page) as opposed to a lack of sources shows that it simply needs more work (rather than deletion). Wiki-Ed 09:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is just the sort of thing that I like to use wikipedia for. MLA 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and increase sourcings and it'll be a good little article. ShaunES 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as original research, listcruft. also no context. yes, it may be interesting or useful, but it's not encyclopedic. Maybe the Guinness Book of World Records will take it. Tychocat 10:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Would it be better if sources like this one were used? Fram 11:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No. None of my objections have to do with sourcing. This list could be the most meticulously documented and verified list ever listed, and it would still be a list that exists only for the sake of being a list. I am considering an article to list all the letters in the common english alphabet - each letter is surely notable, interesting, and usable, and therefore, the list must be worthy of inclusion...? I realize irony often doesn't translate in print, please so note. Tychocat 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Not that it is of major importance, but at least one of your objections does have to do with sourcing. If you complain about OR, then you are complaining because no sources are given. As for your other objections, well, let's agree to disagree... Fram 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and improve references and accuracy. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and improve references and accuracy.--Kev62nesl 11:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has been pretty much disputed since it's last nomination in January. If the source is not credible, the article should go. We can't keep that verify tag on there indefinitely. I'd be happy if a new article was written using Fram's suggested source. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article can be substantiated, and would be a fine article if sourced. Tdslappy
  • Delete for the source issue. If one found an credible source to cite they can always recreate an article using that source. --WinHunter (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, Are you kidding me this article does not have a NPOV and even states "The calculation of the land area of a particular empire is controversial;" but then again he goes against his main source and puts the land area anyway as if it 100 precent certain. (Forhonor 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX[reply]
  • Keep, first user above does not understand what "POV" means - (s)he claimed that the statement 'the British Empire was the world's most extensive empire' constitutes POV. Gsd2000 15:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, User claims that the whole article has a POV which is true it openly goes against its Main source!
  • Delete, Article clearly has a POV, by questioning its main source! (XGustaX 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX[reply]
  • Comment, FR-Altas, Celto and Forhonor are clearly sockpuppets of IIIV, the original poster. Gsd2000 16:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment2, actually - looking at the edit histories, I have reason to believe all four above are sock-puppets of XGustaX. Gsd2000 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. For a change this is a list of the kind that actually belongs in Wikipedia, so the article's active editors should probably be given a chance to clean it up. It appears they have not realised so far that WP:V might lead to an article this poorly cited being deleted. Perhaps this nomination will be the spur they need to get some solid references in there. Let's revisit this in a few months; if it's still not adequately verifiable by then, it should of course be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I still fail to see why this article should be deleted. And which part of the article is POV? Perhaps the comments at the beginning, but the actual lists themselves have very little POV in them. Why should we start from scratch if all we need is to improve the sources. Fram has already found us a very good source. All we need to do is implement it into the article. It seems a bit extreme to delete the entire article when all it needs is a little improvement. Jagged 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've now added that source in the article, and numerous figures from it. This should make the article much more reliable overall, though a few of the figures will still need some more work. Jagged 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a clean-up but it has potential. -- Alias Flood 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic is a valid one - and the list is broken out into segments that would seem to eliminate definitional confusion. I don't think there's significant enough problems with the content to warrant a deletion to restart the list. Work it out on the talk page. Kuru talk 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Alias Flood. Kariià¦Deranged Ramblings 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has potential to be a good group of lists. Verification is important however, and should be a goal in all edits going forward. As nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, abandonment by the original author, if true, is totally irrelevant. Abandonment by the community might be relevant, but the talk page amply demonstrates that is not an issue. And for something like this, where the truth doesn't exactly change every day, community abandonment would not be a big issue. GRBerry 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry. It's a useful list that is beginning to have more reliable sources. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry again. Reo ON | +++ 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep work is being done now and it is improving. Useful I suppose, but it would be better if more sources can be added and verified. SM247My Talk 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is the subject of this article unencylcopaedic? Unless that can be answered, this articel should not be deleted. Which part of the deletion policy does this article fail? Yes, it needs work, and sources, but instead of AfDing it, {{sofixit}}. Batmanand | Talk 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If listing the size of actual empires doesn't merit a spot in an encyclopedia, heaven help the multitude of science fiction entries. --Alsayid 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Held Captive[edit]

NN in the extreme. Ran for two months in Beverly Hills almost twenty years ago. Googling "A Christmas Held Captive" yielded zero results. —  MusicMaker 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep if someone can find references. The director is pretty notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's proof that the play has been produced again since (even by a high school). --Usgnus 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Usgnus' qualifier. --Pboyd04 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Two months at a non-equity, 99-seat playhouse in Beverly Hills? Even if the director is notable (although not for directing), not everything he does is notable. No evidence that this particular production/play is anything close to being notable. TedTalk/Contributions 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hesitate to say delete, since the director and other person's involved seem notable. Could this possibly be merged with another article, or at least made a footnote? It's amusing since this is the early work of a notable director, and such a factoid does have encyclopedic value. Xuanwu 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What notable director? The director of this show, Oliver Muirhead, is a character actor -- one with enough credits that indicates he makes enough to pay the rent, but otherwise undistinguished. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't help but be reminded of Matt Le Blanc performing a musical of the life of Sigmund Freud in Friends. --IslaySolomon 03:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable play, unless this is ever performed again for a wider audience. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even tho it looks like a few people really put some time into it. :( -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, per nom and TedE. SM247My Talk 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete nn -- MrDolomite 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. (Celto 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as it is non-notable.--Tdxiang 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ShaunES 10:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question: Who is the director, I don't see his name mentioned. Only that of whoever wrote the songs. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oliver Muirhead, a British character actor. He was relatively notable, but I don't think that qualifies the production as being notable. —  MusicMaker 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 18:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep if references can be found. Kariià[[User talk:Kariià|Deranged Ramblings]] 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, went into it wanting to give it benefit of the doubt, but non-notability seems obvious upon further review. HumbleGod 21:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Resume-padding, it looks like. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ssilvers 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless it was independently covered by a secondary source, there's no way it could be covered here, and I have no idea how we would find such coverage. How do we know this isn't a hoax? Also, the characters list made me want to puke. Grandmasterka 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although this play only played for a few months, it was significant as Oliver Muirhead's first directorial piece and Lavina Dawson's first stage play. The reason it was probably not found on google searches is due to the fact that it did not play during the time of the internet's general usage by the public. This does not negate the play's historical significance. If the play were created ten years later, in 1996 instead of 1986, then it would have certainly yielded numerous successful searches at least. --Howard352 02:11, 10 July 2006`
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subhashchandra Konjengbam[edit]

Claimes to be a relatively common name in India. If it were so common, then it would have more hits on the search engines. Maybe there is a misspelling in the name somewhere, because the only web hits are Wikipedia mirrors. --Dangherous 00:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it is a common name then let it become a disambig page when we have entries for people with that name. --Pboyd04 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article basically says nothing except "there exists a person named after Subhash Chandra Bose". —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 01:28Z
  • Delete The article spends more time on who it is named after than on the name itself. Looks like a vanity page trying to be kept in with the name-connection with someone notable. TedTalk/Contributions 01:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems unsouced author's own work to me. TerriersFan 02:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN, WP:V, and per nom. Zos 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article jumps from one subject to another, talking little about the name itself. --NMChico24 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:N, WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDoesn't show up on Search engines please how is it so common then! (IIIV 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete for every reason shown above. -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. SM247My Talk 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the above -- MrDolomite 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failure of WP:NN leads to deletion.--Tdxiang 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NN -- Alias Flood 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Sherman[edit]

NN last scion of notable parantage. Imdb yields one entry under actor instead of producer in one episode of an NN show. Lyricist of A Christmas Held Captive, also afd'ed. Suspect autobio. —  MusicMaker 00:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed with Musicmaker. Also if you look at the creator's contribs, they show him making changes mostly to assorted Shermans, which leads one to believe they are related to them. While most do seem to be legit, this person seems to be a no name director. Maybe, if needed, it could be added to form a "Sherman Bros." page. Arod14 01:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, being part of a notable family doesn't make you notable. Maybe if he directs something more notable, he can have an article, but not now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO. -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. SM247My Talk 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO.--Tdxiang 06:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appaerntly, he's got Academy Award winning family who wrote some pretty famous music, but his IMDB entry has only one credit for himself. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO Not worthy of own article -- Alias Flood 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, similar reasoning to my opinion on A Christmas Held Captive; we can't verify this, he's non-notable and the article could be part hoax. Grandmasterka 04:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Anderson, Alexandria attorney[edit]

Non-notable. Accomplished attorney, but not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by WP:BIO. —Brim 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Recreated content.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wrestling League[edit]

Non-notable backyard wrestling league. 4 Google hits. Metros232 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete information is worthless, obviously created by the teenagers who run the farcical organisation.
  • Delete run by teenagers no less. --Pboyd04 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 01:26Z
  • Delete per nom. hateless 01:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Backyard wrestling is inherently non-notable. --DarkAudit 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A no-name organization probably added to Wikipedia by members. Not at all fit to be in an encyclopedia. Arod14 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their "official website"[2] is on a geocities-esque free webspace service[3] and boasts a massive 347 hits. --IslaySolomon 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There has been no media coverage of this league and it has real verifiability and notability problems. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kids these days Feedyourfeet 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the picture of the kid wrestling his 8 year old sister (or whoever) were cute, but this is still obviously non-notable. Update: counter is up to 350. Kuru talk 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete reads as personal website. SM247My Talk 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per basically everyone else at this point. Homestarmy 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonnotablevanispam -- MrDolomite 04:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable kids group, been deleted once already[4].--Andeh 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost of deleted material (CSD G4 -- Kevin 09:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable as it reads as a personal website. More of vanity.--Tdxiang 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, etc. ShaunES 10:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Site claims they are teenagers, but based on the pictures they look under 10, and in some cases even younger than that. No more encyclopedic than a backyard game of tag or hide-and-seek. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete reads as personal website. (XGustaX 16:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biip[edit]

My Norwegian being a bit rusty I'm not able to assess this website but it gets little in the way of Google hits. An unsourced 'fastest growing' doesn't confer notability to me. TerriersFan 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It dosen't seem that notable. However, there are articles on websites for a similar purpose, such as MySpace and Miniclip. Green caterpillar 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is a question of notability not purpose. MySpace is undoubtedly notable. Miniclip should possibly be reviewed since it looks more like an advert to me. However, I am saying Delete because there are insufficient Google hits (that I can find anyway) to show any real notability. TerriersFan 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. [5] vs. [6] Even in Norway this pales in comparison to Myspace. The site looks tacky and very commercial. You can't even get past the frontpage without sending in a text message. This feels like spam for one of countless many naff mobile phone services aimed at teenagers. Without any assertion of significance it should be deleted.--IslaySolomon 02:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real evidence of notability. If their membership has grown to the levels claimed in 5 months, there should be some news articles or something that the author can cite to back it up. Otherwise, it's yet another advert article. --NMChico24 02:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very notable, especially on a global scale. This is probably better off on the Norwegian Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Better off in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Not too global it seems.
    • Wikipedia is project that should be accesible to anyone. Entries shouldn't be deleted for not having an international appeal. That said. This appears to be basic spam that cannot even be compared to MySpace. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Tdxiang 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN -- Alias Flood 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, shouldn't even be in the no.wikipedia (and it isn't, I've checked), just another website. --Eivindt@c 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per introduction of WP:RS beyond obits Eluchil404 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brede Arkless[edit]

Nothing stands out as exceptionally notable about this rock climber, and WP:NOT a memorial. Suggest deletion. RFerreira 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete google search showed obits and wiki mirrors. --Pboyd04 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Memorials are pretty clearly spelled out in WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 01:24Z
  • Delete per above. -- Captain Disdain 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Keep. Thanks to the excellent edits by trialsanderrors, I feel the article now not only establishes notability but is also properly sourced. Good job! -- Captain Disdain 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial.(IIIV 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above and I might add WP:V or WP:RS for good measure, as there is only an aobituary cited and there only appear to be like sources available. SM247My Talk 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has no ark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.81.232 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Strong Strong Keep WP:NOT an obituary, but various obituaries from WP:RS confer notability. [7] [8] [9] [10]. Also [11]: Irishwoman Brede Arkless, a mountain guide now living in New Zealand, attempted Everest via the North Col pre-monsoon this year, hoping to be the oldest woman (she is 54) and the first Irish woman to climb Everest. Unfortunately she had to give up at 8500m with severe altitude sickness. Lazy nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable story.--Tdxiang 06:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There aren't that many articles on her in the major newspapers, but what there is is WP gold: First off is the news from Lochcarron mountain guide Martin Moran, that his five-strong Anglo-Indian expedition succeeded in their attempt to repeat Eric Shipton and Bill Tilman's epic, and nearly fatal, 1934 crossing between the Hindu temples of Badrinath and Kedarnath in the Garhwal region of the Indian Himalaya. Moran, who arrived back in Scotland last weekend, recommended the 14-day crossing as "a good way to lose three-quarters of a stone". He continued: "We were not exactly in prime condition. I had just recovered from injuries sustained falling off my roof, Brede Arkless is in her sixtieth year and John Harvey in his fifty-seventh. That we did succeed was due to good teamwork, enthusiasm and determination for the project, and considerable luck with the weather which stayed good for the crucial col crossing." — The Herald (Glasgow) June 20, 1998. Someone with RfA ambitions should jump on this and turn it into a featured article. ~ trialsanderrors 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another dead mountaineer. -- GWO
  • Keep - firstly my apologies to the lady for obviously not having done her justice in my original stub. But I would have thought that even your most dismissive posters would have paused for thought when noting that she had an obituary in each of the UKs 'liberal' newspapers. Her fame rests in her success as being the first female alpine guide at a time (late 1960s) when that profession was both _completely_ male dominated, and also dubious of UK mountaineers. Her dedication in the 70s to the developing of all-female mountaineering was also a very important and pioneering contribution. (Her subsequent contribution to NZ mountaineerng has also been noteworthy, I gather, though largely unrecorded ). She is clearly much more important than say some minor male US-football player, and a failure to recognise this in WP is both blinkered and arguably sexist. Bob aka Linuxlad 10:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an obituary in The Times, The Guardian and The Independent is a fairly clear sign of nobability. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. Receiving obituaries in such high-profile newspapers indicate this is not just a regular mountaineer. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The links provided not only demonstrate notability but give us verifiable sources. Exactly what we need. --kingboyk 12:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for revelation of new information (Newspaper report links), which was added by Trialsanderrors after this AFD begins. --WinHunter (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Alias Flood 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable indeed. trialsanderrors has convinced me, and newer edits have helped. HumbleGod 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Many obituaries, even in leading newspapers, are about subjects not notable enough for wikipedia Bwithh 21:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment She had a number of articles on her during her lifetime, about 20 in total from three five different countries if I include obits, not including mountaineering magazines. Passes my T&E:510 test with ease. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per lots of good references. nn Ziggurat 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that she was the first female mountain guide makes her notable. Her climbs add to this. The fact there there are articles about people in other sports who are much less notable than her is of course not a good argument but it is true none the less and should give some thought to those who know nothing about moutaineering. As a mountaineer, she is clearly notable. --Bduke 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Moore[edit]

Reads link an ad. "Moore Method Exercise" only gets three google hits, so the person is probably non-notable too. However, this is more difficult to verify with google as Kathy Moore is a quite common name. -- Koffieyahoo 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. The only Google hit is her website on a free hosting service. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 01:23Z
  • Delete as non-notable. If the method is notable with celebrity adherents, it would certainly show up somewhere. It doesn't. TedTalk/Contributions 01:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No relevant google representation, nothing in notable exercise or yoga publications that I could find (due to the aforementioned fruitless google search). Looks like a weak stab at gaining some additional hits to the website. --NMChico24 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad and self-promotion, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not-notable/written as advertising. Even resorts to "she has worked with" name dropping. --IslaySolomon 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising of non-notable person. SM247My Talk 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. An advertisement?.--Tdxiang 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, away with self-promos. HumbleGod 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, reads like advertisment. ShaunES 10:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as spam -- Alias Flood 19:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only a blatant advert, but a poorly written blatant advert. --Satori Son 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Whilst the case to delete this article hasn't been made. I certainly recommend that the editors consider merging it to a suitable target, or perhaps expanding it to discuss the other school in the area. Any work done in expanding it, in lieu of merging, would also be welcome. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Point Elementary School (Pennsylvania)[edit]

Notability in question (West Point serves approximately 250 students) --NMChico24 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per precedent of established notability of public schools. hateless 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a notability precedent for high schools. There's no precedent for elementary schools, except that very few are notable. -- Kicking222 02:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with major clean-up, By reading the article, you can't really determine anything about the school , such as where it is located besides being in a no-name township. Arod14 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for lack of real content. Deletion should deter people from putting up half-finished entries that cannot even be considered stubs. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about an upper elementary school of 250, and no notability is even claimed. This simply has to stop. TedTalk/Contributions 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because it's a public school does not mean it's a notable school. Unless something else can be added to the article that would make it stand out among elementary schools, this article is unnecessary. joturner 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I commented above, few elementary schools are notable, and this one doesn't state why it's any more important than any other elementary school. -- Kicking222 02:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Here's that slippery slope we were assured wouldn't happen. Even if high schools are inherently notable (which is a dubious concept made "true" only by repeately saying it is so), there is nothing inherently notable about an elementary school. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Nothing in this article demonstrates why it is encyclopedic. The concept of "precedence" is a myth. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, and schools are not inherently notable. Agent 86 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, College=notable, High Schools=for the most part notable, Elementarys=Unless something amazing is involving it, not notable. There is nothing notable to this and there is no assertion of notability. Yanksox 03:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. High schools are one thing, but unless there's something absolutely astonishing about them, elementary schools aren't notable at all. WP:SCHOOL is not policy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a school inclusionist, but elementry schools need to be pretty special to actually be notable. --Pboyd04 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elementry schools Need to be pretty special. This one is not. (IIIV 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. High schools as a matter of course should be kept, elementary schools should not for the reasons articulated here and in many other places. SM247My Talk 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inclusion of elementary schools is going too far. AdamBiswanger1 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that high schools are important. Many, many people go to their high school reunions. But there's a reason there's no such thing as an "elementary school reunion." Elementary schools just aren't that notable. --NMChico24 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete get something notable to happen at the school and then we will talk -- MrDolomite 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the local elementary school is not notable. Why did this an-article-for-every-school meme get so popular anyway? Opabinia regalis 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hempfield Area School District which the school belongs to. Not very notable on its own, and the article is very short, but some information on the school might be of interest to some readers in the context of the entire district. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the usual reasons for deleting schools. Artw 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not schoolcruft. It ought to be expanded or face deletion.--Tdxiang 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to cite my personal BEEFSTEW guideline as showing that the article is "not schoolcruft," note that BEEFSTEW does not say anything about "schoolcruft..." And please note too that by my count, in its current state, this article gets points A (barely... it's three sentences long), B (I don't really think it's coherent as a paragraph, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt), and D, for building and renovation dates, for a total of 3 out of 10. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dpbsmith, how have I missed your tasty-sounding set of criteria? My compliments to the chef for such a well-thought out set of guidelines. I may have to steal the recipe for myself. Agent 86 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I see Sjakkalle's point, and maybe a merge would work, but really it seems like too much trouble when elementary schools are non-notable by wikipedia definition. HumbleGod 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't buy the argument that high schools (sic) are notable, yet elementary schools are not. Just because there is a tradition of attending high school reunions in the USA does not make high schools more notable. All schools are notable, each have a profound impact on 1000s of people over the years, equiping them with the ability to enjoy wikipedia, for one. Markb 07:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: and to concur with Markb and add to my Keep vote above: All public schools are public institutions no matter the grade, and are administered by the same authorities. Enrollment in elementary schools is mandatory whereas not as much in high schools traditionally, and probably have a greater impact on the development of a person than high schools do. They also tend to be institutions as old or older than high schools. High schools granted are larger institutuions, but it is one factor among many to compare notability. I do not see the obviousness of how high schools are inherently so much more notable than elementary schools. And in my eyes, the reason why notability has any concern to a non-paper encyclopedia is because of WP:V, and as public institutions there should be enough information available via these public agencies to ensure verifiability. hateless 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that most of the borderline school articles have no source citations but the school's own website... while easily obtained official sources usually contain only basic statistics that would be better presented in tabular form than as a stubby paragraph. As I write this, this article cites no sources at all and thus is not in accord with the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. High schools may be notable, but the majority of elementary schools are not notable enough to deserve articles. --Musicpvm 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another unspecial elementary school. -- GWO
  • Delete. Utterly non notable, like most schools are Fram 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn school. --WinHunter (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Green caterpillar 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other delete votes. --Metropolitan90 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NN. -- Alias Flood 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sjakkale- Elementary schools... not so much. FCYTravis 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete elementary schools are not inheirantly notable Ydam 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NN is NOT POLICY, what is more, notability is not a valid criteria for deletion of a school article. Over FORTY elementary schools survived the AfD process last month alone, how can it be consistent to delete this one? 68.144.102.170 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What happened with other articles has no bearing on what happens to this one. And it is quite accepted by the community at large that an entry should be notable in order to be included. Nothing that is happening here is outside of Wikipedia policy. --NMChico24 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NN may not be policy, but it's generally accepted that not everything can be included. People and bands must have done something notable before being included, and words must be in common use before being worth listing. Schools should be no different. Scores of articles are deleted because they lack content on a daily basis. Again, schools should not be treated any different. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, and none seems possible (there is no inherent notability associated with four walls and a roof). Proto///type 10:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another boring school. Catchpole 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable information avaliable to expand article beyond substub Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect into Hempfield Area School District works for me. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* comment. The problem with merging schools into some local government/administrative department is that the essence of the school, it's huge life-long impact on pupils, becomes subsumed into a bureaucracy. Would you suggest, for example, that the achievements of Olympic athletes, should be covered by an article on the file-keeping abilities of the International Olympic Committee ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markb (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 July 2006
  • Comment - How does one encyclopedically explain the essence of an elementary school? I mean, honestly, what can an elementary school article ever be but a list of teachers, the school mascot (if there is one) and the day the school was founded? What else is there possibly to be said? FCYTravis 01:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few elementary schools are certainly notable. Froebel's original kindergarten (which literally included a garden... there I've seen cute pictures of little German kids working in it), the original Montessori schools, Summerhill. These would be encyclopedically explained by reference to the unique, pioneering and controversial educational philosophies of their founders. It is very unlikely that West Point Elementary School falls in this category. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a number of elementary schools by this name and it is completely reasonable that someone would expect Wikipedia, the sum of human knowledge, to document them. Verifiability issues within the article have already been addressed and resolved. Silensor 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "the sum of human knowledge" is Britannica's slogan. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a fact? "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimmy Wales Silensor 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Daily Globe, Jan 25, 1903, p. 34
Yes, it's a fact. They've been using it in various forms for at least a century. AFAIK it's not trademarked or anything. I don't believe for a microsecond that Jimbo is unaware of it. I don't know for sure but I rather think Jimbo expects people to catch the reference. "The sum of human knowledge" means "something sorta-kinda-vaguely-like the Britannica, not some whole totally 'nother thing." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that the Britannica used it as a slogan, but I was wrong about Jimbo intentionally referring to it. I emailed him and he said "I had no idea actually. It could perhaps be that I subconsciously got it in that way, of course." He credits the line as you quoted it to Erik Moeller and himself, when preparing his first public talk about Wikipedia in Berlin circa 2003. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but leave the merge/redirect that User:RJHall put in place. I support an article on this school, but one hasn't really been completed yet. There's no harm in leaving it as is (with the redirect) Also, since there's been a merge, we can't delete without undoing the merge (which would be rather odd). When somebody has time/interest, they can make a full stand-alone article. --Rob 21:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful redirect to West Point Elementary School while retaining the edit history in the event that this will be expanded at a later date (and for GFDL purposes). Bahn Mi 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools are notable, and worthy of inclusion in Jimbo's big bag 'o trivia!  ALKIVAR™ 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bag o' trivia. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, almost all schools are notable. bbx 22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp per Bahn Mi and others. --Myles Long 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important and we should document it here Yuckfoo 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say this school is important. How is this school any more important than any other? --NMChico24 02:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable elementary school. Also note that the AFD tag was vanished for two days by a well-intentioned reidrect of the article. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of "notability". RN 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I buy that high schools are inherently notable because of the strength they have in their local communities the same arguement does not apply to elementary schools. This one does not assert any notability. TerriersFan 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the school district. It is not the most notable of elementary schools, but still could be searched for. Yamaguchi先生 04:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. If we are just vote-coiunting, it's 60% delete (15 delets, 10 keeps). However, a number of those keeps are either 'No, it's not a list!', 'I think it's useful', or 'If you have THESE, this should be kept'. None of which are ever great arguments. Most of the deletes refer to either the article being superceded by categories, or it failing WP:NOT. both of which are strong arguments (except two votes). Therefore, delete. If anyone would like a copy placed in their userspace, please let me know - I imagine this could be a useful reference for researching the history of the Sci-Fi channel. Proto///type 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs[edit]

Delete - A similar article passed this way recently. These 'Lists of movies shown on' seem to have limited value and are not directly sourced. BlueValour 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Precisely what the nominator said: this is nothing a category (or several categories) couldn't handle. joturner 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think program listings for television channels are encyclopedic information. -- Captain Disdain 02:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: wikipedia is not a tv guide :p Zos 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not TV Guide. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really needs Wikification and Keep for the most part. In relation to the very television channel, this would be rather pertinant information concerning the constant evolution of the Sci Fi Channel. Although it's definately a list right now, this duly needs to be Wikified in order to examine how SciFi Channel changed over the years, especially since 1998 wherein which much of the "classic" reruns, namely the now defunct second-run programming, seem'd to have disappeared and likewise prompted the start of more original series aside from Mission Genesis and movies produced by SciFi Pictures (however, they are usually rather horrid aside from their unintended[?] humour). DrWho42 03:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But surely that would be something that could be far better accomplished within the main Sci Fi Channel article instead? I mean, there really isn't even anything to merge, this is just a list. -- Captain Disdain 04:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of it... But eventually it would overcrowd the rest of the article which is the reason why it was moved separately onto its own being.. Like I did for the marathon programming block called S.C.I.F.I. World and the two cartoon blocks they used to air on Saturday mornings during the early and mid 1990s. DrWho42 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, wouldn't it make more sense to split something off the article when it grows to that point? I mean, is "List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs" really the most convenient, sensible and useful thing to split off the main article? I mean, especially considering the name of the article, I just don't see this ever becoming useful... -- Captain Disdain 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not TV Guide. (IIIV 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - looks like it could've gone somewhere, but easier to do categories since they update themselves too. -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a pile of indiscriminate listcruft. SM247My Talk 04:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think many of you are knee-jerk voting to delete this without actually looking at the article, it reason for being or its potential. It is not a programming guide, but a verifiable historical documentation. It has the potential for seeding a "History of.."-type of an article. - Davodd 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the Comment. There are already the Categories of SciFi Channel original movies and the more newly formed shows for the sake of organisation, although the main thing for this article is to evolve past its primitive list state and examine itself in more detail (i.e. why did they stop showing Lost in Space and olde Doctor Who episodes with its impact on the fandom, original programming, &c). DrWho42 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MakeRocketGoNow 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:No different. AfD them all, I'll vote. -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. -- Captain Disdain 02:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For most of them; no different. Look out for more AfDs coming soon to a computer near you. :-) BlueValour 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT This is also a policy, which means its non-negotiable, this shouldn't even be up for debate.--Crossmr 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is a useful guide and many of these films already have begun to be importance. Also, if we delete this we should vote to delete ALL of the above pages as well since it is absolutely NO different.--rxdxt 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those films that have importance rightly have (or can have) their own article. A list showing what has been shown on which channel is unencyclopaedic and I find it hard to see its use. I will be bringing the others forward (unless they have additional merit) in due course. BlueValour 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories have a tendancy to get screwed up. This type of list article is found throughout the site. Like others have said, it could be expanded with information, wikified.-Giant89 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Information about what network a show is broadcast on is found in the article for each show as it is - the shows are not linked other than by virtue of being broadcast by a particular channel. Lists should really have a decent nexus, not just any particular common characteristic like who has aired them. There will be any number of these lists which repeat-mention popular shows, with only minor variations from list to list as you go from country to country. SM247My Talk 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Revragnarok, right down to the willingness to vote the rest of them off the grid too. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Wikify. As others have said above, this has the potential of becoming an important article on the history of Sci-Fi Channel. Even in this form, it is highly informative. It's easy to forget, when turning on Sci-Fi once a week for SG-1 or whatever, how large a role Sci-Fi has played in producing, airing or rerunning science fiction series over the last decade, and how much it has changed over the years. It's also obvious that the list is already too long to fit in the parent article, and categories don't really give the big picture here. To delete this article as listcruft would be shortsighted, a loss and a shame, IMO. Karen 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep wikify Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MakeRocketGoNow Maxamegalon2000 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kf4hzu 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Adelaide University Sports Association. – Avi 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Table Cup[edit]

A cup between two universities was recently deleted so it is hard to make a case for one between colleges of the same university. In any case, the essentials can be added to Adelaide University Sports Association. BlueValour 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Whatever else, this is not notable enough for its own page. Therefore, if it is not suitable for merging it is a Delete. BlueValour 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Per nom, this does not deserve a page. Since it doesn't have anything to do with AUSA, mentions on the college pages should be enough. JPD (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as per nom. -- Alias Flood 19:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Adelaide University Sports Association. Capitalistroadster 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article too long to merge, not non-notable enoguh to delete. —Pengo 06:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even intervarsity stuff, this is internal university stuff and isn't related to the Uni Associatn, but rather something that the colleges organize themselves. BTW, each of these colleges only have about 150-200 people, so they cover a total of 750 students and only 5% of the uni population at most.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable sporting event. --Roisterer 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Capitalistroadster. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Monday[edit]

I don't see how how one aspect of the marketing campaign merits its own page, at least not with this little info. There's nothing here that can't be covered on the Mortal Kombat page. Ace of Sevens 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westcoasanostra[edit]

This is not a notable release; hasn't charted, not on a major label. It is a mixtape, which is self-produced and released. It is advertising, as it includes a link to order it online. Mikeblas 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was set to keep this since it is by an artist with an article (Crooked I). However, on closer inspection it seems his notability is equally dubious. The same goes for his "upcoming" album B.O.S.S. which is "slated for release in 2006". --IslaySolomon 02:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant ad, non-notable album by an non-notable artist. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an obvious Ad. Not a notable artist. (IIIV 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Tdxiang 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: ad for a non-notable album. ¦[[User talk:Kariià| Deranged Ramblings]] 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant ad. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. I needed a tracklist for this CD, and I found it useful.

The similar Mix tapes Young Boss (Volume 1) and Young Boss (Volume 2) have now been added to to this discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. There's no way this article on a term that's "starting to spread" is going to be kept. Vegetarians can now relax. :P Kimchi.sg 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatitarians[edit]

Meatitarians are people who it [sic] only/mainly meat. Neologism / made up in school one day nonsense. Sorry to bother you with this but an established editor removed the speedy tag. -- RHaworth 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note sorry, its not patent nonsense, so I've removed the speedy tag. However...
  • Delete very silly. I wish I could say this was Spam, but Spam's meat content is questionable. SM247My Talk 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete neologism. I think I'll just stick with carnivore. Kuru talk 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, could this be a BJAODN candidate? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJ-ify The "scientific classification" burger puts it over the top. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy speedy speedy delete. Nonsensical...--Tdxiang 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground. – Avi 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LP Underground 2.0 EP[edit]

Fanpage listcruft, needs redirect to Linkin Park Underground Zos 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground. – Avi 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LP Underground 3.0 EP[edit]

Fanpage listcruft, redirect to Linkin Park Underground Zos 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground. – Avi 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LP Underground 4.0 EP[edit]

Fan page, again, redirect to Linkin Park Underground Zos 02:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Bones historical connections[edit]

I nominated this page for deletion a month ago; the discussion terminated in no consensus. As before, with minor changes marked:

  1. The length of this article (approx. 250 241 kb) is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book.
  2. The writing style of the entire article is inappropriate. The whole thing is filled with innuendo, speculations, uncited accusations, and gossip.
  3. Finally, and most importantly, virtually nothing is cited. The article makes a number of extraordinary claims about the involvement of the Skull and Bones group in drug dealing, but there are only 20 18 citations in the entire article, most of which are for auxiliary points. To put that in perspective, that's about one citation for each 12 13 kilobytes of text.

One of the serious concerns with the article - the presence of large direct quotations from books and other sources - has been dealt with. However, little else has changed since I first nominated this article for deletion about a month ago. It's quite likely that the sheer size of the article simply makes cleanup an impossible task. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: AFD: Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Another article by the same authors, with many of the same issues. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy page length, Batman! This article clearly can't be saved, as it hasn't really changed much in a month. It fails WP:NPOV and is barely cited. I would have no objection to it coming back in the form of multiple, NPOV articles, but I'm not sure how possible this is. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This is a quater megabyte long, unverifyable and almost unreadable. It certainly is not an encyclopedia article. --IslaySolomon 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every policy applies here but WP:PORN BIO. It's quite remarkable. AdamBiswanger1 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything worth saving (good luck pulling it out of that mess) to Skull and Bones --Pboyd04 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forceful Delete That's no article, its a giant mess of POV, unsourced speculation SM247My Talk 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a giant waste dump for OR. Zos 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the Keep votes from the 1st AfD as "get this article in shape or else". It's time for else. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or Else Massive consipacruft. --DarkAudit 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with AdamBiswanger1 above. ouch -- MrDolomite 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsalvagable UNBELIEVABLY long (about 38,000 words, maybe half-a-book in length) OR mess. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - where did all this text come from? Oi vey. HumbleGod 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too wordy and too LONGGG...sorry!--Tdxiang 07:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep - the length is what made me notice the article in the first place; it was (and still is!) high up on Special:Longpages. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Mad, mad, mad. -- GWO
  • Mild keep. Being too long is not a valid reason for deletion. We usually ask for citations and let articles stew for a while before deleting them. Have the major contributors refused to cite sources? A quick glance and the writing style seemed alright, though I don't know about the content. Justforasecond 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The users who originally created the article haven't touched it for months; in fact, ReSearcher (talk · contribs), who wrote most of the original article, has only made one edit since April. The recent quote cleanup was carried out by another user. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an aside, I just noticed another article in the same vein: Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. I'm going to give fair warning on this one before nominating it, but it appears to have many of the same issues - a near-total lack of sources, extraordinary claims, and general WP:OR. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I'm going to go ahead and nominate that one, too. Another user commented that s/he "very seriously considered putting it up for AfD" in April, and little seems to have changed since. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholly original research (Batman)! Delete. David | Talk 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Presents as fact a bunch of conspiracy theories. This article is hopeless. --Joelmills 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR --Satori Son 07:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I wouldn't oppose a strongly reduced and rigorously cited section in the main Skull and Bones article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, enormous block of original research. Unreadable too. Look at the first version of the page, when it was creatoed, this just screams "copied and pasted" from somewhere... but google was no help. - Motor (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tedious nonsense. Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is literally the first time I've been unable to read an article properly before voting on deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a... whatever this is. — Haeleth Talk 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone's unpublished book, it seems, and we're not in the business of publishing...whatever this is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks as (obsessively paranoid) original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And from there it can be used as a text in paranoid schizophrenia. (I don't think they want it, either.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah... Wikibooks is primarily intended for educational texts. I really don't think this qualifies. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. I aggressively pushed for its deletion before and I will do so now. This is in an unsalvageably bad state beyond cleanup, it might very well be a copyright violation and it has innumerable other issues. Please trash this (and start anew, if you must.) Grandmasterka 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong delete as encyclopedic, non cited, original research all 241 kilobytes of it.--John Lake 04:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons cited above. Kaldari 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raincrowd[edit]

Vanity page for what seems like a non-notable band. Cheekily, they've also linked to the wikipedia article from their Official Site in place of biography. IslaySolomon 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link from the website is suspicious. Weak Delete since I'm not entirely sure if being an opening act for a couple of notable bands creates notability. But as it appears now, it looks like it fails WP:MUSIC. Yanksox 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I see no substantive assertion of notability. AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is saying they opened for notable bands an assertion or notability? If not I would even say speedy delete --Pboyd04 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it possibly could be, but it depends on numerous factors like the venue. Yanksox 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Is this reliable? - (March 26, 1998 article in The Business Daily (a national newspaper in the Philippines at that time) by Joel M. Toledo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Raincrowdundertheweather.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4D80:A6:F5B5:EA9B:15B0:2A38 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2013 (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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boogiemonsters[edit]

Notability in question. Sending to AFD due to speedy being contested by seasoned contributor. --NMChico24 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz[edit]

This was up for a CSD, and as an admin, I just wasn't sure if this is really notable enough. So I figure an AfD should determine it better than I can. Not sure exactly how accurate the google test would be considering these events took place 30+ years ago-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to source, which is a Congressional transcript, he was the head of Castro's airforce. Article could be cleaned up, but notability appears to exist. Yanksox 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Yanksox. The article reads like "Baby's First Book Of Cuban Revolution" though --IslaySolomon 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Google shows some orignal research and some latin american sites. But I can atleast tell he was a pilot who defected which backs up some of the story. --Pboyd04 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Appears to have been mentioned in relation to the Kennedy assassination, occupied important position under Castro, was allegedly a contemporary of Lee Harvey Oswald - not sure really but I lean towards keep if verification can be inserted, and the article made up less about non-verifiable information such as what he wanted to do as a boy. SM247My Talk 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As written, the article seems inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedic article. Take away most of the unverifiable content and we are left with a stub of a man who's only claim to fame is as head of Castro's airforce. Fails to meet WP:BIO. TheRingess 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the article, and made it more of an encylopedic tone. It's not the best, but it is an improvement. Yanksox 04:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, I'm 14.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acsta (talk • contribs) .

It's not you that's being debated or the quality of the content. It's the notability. Yanksox 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It fails WP:BIO but is quite encyclopedic.--Tdxiang 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears notable enough, and maybe someone who's not "just 14" will add something more soon. If not, delete it next time around. HumbleGod 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per cleanup. The article looks much better now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems fine after the cleanup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Brim 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that Yanksox has tackled it. Still needs citations, but much better. --Satori Son 07:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox and rewrite. A deflected Cuban airforce commander is notable. I don't see how that fails WP:BIO. Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author request. Roy A.A. 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josette Halpert[edit]

Non-notable actress. Google finds only 18 hits, the top one for her IMDB bio. Prod removed by article creator without explanation. Delete. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Name of main editor is the same as the fan site. ~ trialsanderrors 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Special Thanks on a TV Christmas Special? Thats her claim to notability. --Pboyd04 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she only has an imdb bio because she was one of a large group of children that appeared in the background of a cheap TV christmas special. --IslaySolomon 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded the article & was considering AfD. Maybe if/when Molly: An American Girl Victory is released, but she doesn't meet WP:BIO now. -- Scientizzle 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete textbook non-notability. SM247My Talk 04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable article.--Tdxiang 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - only person who seems to know anything about her is the main editor. WP:NN. HumbleGod 07:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
....the main objection is that the subject is not noteworthy. Perhaps with time and a larger resume she'll be of enough note to merit an article here, but at the moment the article just serves as advance publicity for a young actress in a yet-to-be-released film. Props for working to promote your clients, but this isn't the place for promotion. HumbleGod 21:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete!!!!!. The admission that this article about a non-notable aactress was written by her agent makes me nauseous. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD-G7 - author requests deletion. Also, we don't delete old AfD debates here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G7, author's request. Kimchi.sg 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eye4you[edit]

Notability in question. Possible advert. --NMChico24 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only claim to notability is distributing software written by someone else. --Pboyd04 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. Creator's contributions speak for themselves [14]--IslaySolomon 04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all corporate spam. SM247My Talk 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Main author of this page (Nathan.manzi) concedes main purpose was advertisement. HumbleGod 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small 4-5 man shop that would appear to only be re-distributing software (correct me if I mis-read that). Article is written by employee, so WP:VANITY conflict of interest problems. Media reviews are mainly for the re-distributed software, with scant mention of the company - with one fairly strong exception [15], so I can't see any claims to WP:CORP.Kuru talk 05:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Kuru talk 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Conflict of interest, however, article intended to inform rather than advertise. Nathan.manzi 05:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Tdxiang 07:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:VAIN. Technically, the author voted to delete - does this get a G7 for that? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive orthogony[edit]

Neologism invented for an academic paper. Author of said paper, Stephen Terence Gould, is presumably the author of the article, User:Stgould. Stephen: please mind the notice on the WP editing pages that says "Don't write about yourself". Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom. TheRingess 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's a shame because the writing style is so accessable: "An orthogony is an orthogonal-like or pair-wise relationship expressed in simple-power terms." --IslaySolomon 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think one would expect more than 6 google hits for a term of sufficient usage to merit an article. Tyrenius 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Postmodernism Generator usually does a better job putting meaningful phrases together. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because if semanticist dematerialism holds, we have to choose between dialectic libertarianism and subtextual narrative. Oh, and WP:AUTO. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and, inter al., Trials, to whom someone somewhat less lazy than I should give a barnstar for humor. Joe 05:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HumbleGod 07:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tdxiang 07:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a bit of academic experience and couldn't pull anything out of that other than it has something to do with how men and women remember things differently. That, and the fact the term seems to have been made up by the author. Ace of Sevens 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.007 (Rudyard Kipling)[edit]

No real content. It needs to get expanded ASAP, or it should just go. --zenohockey 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hmm, it could be tagged with speedy deletion {{db-empty}} if you think it should be.--Andeh 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I figure that if someone took the time to write even a few words and hit enter, there's a chance someone looking at this page will have enough information to make the article worthwhile. If not, well, it's already been there since May 12; a little while longer won't hurt. (A lot longer will, though) --zenohockey 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for reasons listed by nom. Let it survive this threat; if nothing changes in some time, bring 'er back and chuck it for good. HumbleGod 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for reasons stated by nominator.--Tdxiang 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, if nothing changes, I'll support speedy deletion per CSD-A3 - no content. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - a little research reveals it is about a locomotive not a bullet calibre, so its one fact is incorrect! However other Kipling stories have their own pages so there's no need to get rid of it if it is expanded.Yomangani 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously now a Strong Keep - at this rate it could make Featured Article before the AfD discussion is done.Yomangani 12:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awful write-up aside, this isn't one of Kipling's better known stories. It should just go on his page. Ace of Sevens 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ace of Sevens. Idiotic writeup, minor story. I don't think it should even go on his page though Bwithh 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe not the best article around, but as noted above, other Kipling stories have their own articles, and it's more deserving of amn article than all the Pokemon episodes.--Runcorn 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + expand --Lukobe 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Awful article. Legitimate topic. I've always rather liked this story about anthropomorphized locomotives. Full text online here. There is at least a credible possibility[16] that James Bond's number may in fact have been suggested by the story. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. I don't agree with Ace of Sevens that it is "not one of Kipling's better-known stories." Not ultra-famous but hardly obscure. For example, it was chosen as one of fifteen stories for inclusion in a little Signet paperback, "'The Mark of the Beast' and Other Stories." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Keeping articles about individual episodes of TV series while deleting articles about stories by Nobel Prize winners makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. Cloachland 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, having articles whose only content is "A short story by Rudyard Kipling. The .007 is probably meaning caliber-number. This story has no relation to secret agent James Bond (codenamed 007)" makes WP a laughingstock. If it still looks like that after it's been on AfD for a week, there is clearly not enough interest among editors—and thus, presumably, WP readers in general—to make it worthwhile, at least at this time.
Besides, which do you think is more likely to make WP a laughingstock: Good articles on bad (read, "uncultured") topics, or barely readable articles on good topics? --zenohockey 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother. Oh, wait... that was a rhetorical question. Well, I guess you'll never know which of your hypothetical opinions I'm agreeing with. You'll just have to guess as to whether I've guessed your true opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a sentence bothers you, {{sofixit}} applies. I've added a Project Gutenburg link to the talk page. GRBerry 03:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per zenohockey
  • Strong keep. The article has been expanded since it was nominated, and is now a much less obvious deletion candidate. (Incidentally, I profess bafflement as to why so many people, having expressed dissatisfaction with the old writeup and demonstrated that they knew what was wrong with it, didn't take a moment to fix it themselves. Surely, if you had time to moan about it here...) --Paul A 07:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably people didn't want to spend time on something that had lukewarm support and might be deleted (that was my reason anyway).Yomangani 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about me... well... I can't speak for others but I like to spend a little bit more time when I'm adding material to an article than when I'm commenting on it in an AfD. I shoot from the hip sometimes in an AfD comment, but I try not to when I'm editing an article. I wanted to get my "keep" in early, and I wasn't sure when I'd have time to work on the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're talking about me, who took the time to nominate it...well, that's what I felt like doing. And lo, it led to a vast improvement in the article, didn't it? There's more than one way to bite the bullet. --zenohockey 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or if that fails, merge and redirect it to the author article). Story by famous author should be covered especially when it's about antropomorphic locomotives, which don't seem to be his standard fare. I don't see any good reason to delete content about stories by Kipling in particular one that has been cleaned up. BTW, shouldn't this be at .007 without the modifier with a redirect at 007 (Rudyard Kipling) for those who forget the dot? - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Mgm that the title should be just .007. I'm looking over the titles in Category:Short stories, where the vast majority don't have the author's name. Joyous! | Talk 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fer shur. And there will need to be some tinkering with the 007 (disambiguation) page, and a decision as to whether 007 should continue to be a redirect to James Bond. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree the title should be at .007. 007, on the other hand, should continue to redirect to James Bond, because that is the overwhelmingly most common usage of "007". —Lowellian (reply) 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. --zenohockey 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Cloachland's comment above. —Lowellian (reply) 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs more attention, but what is there (currently) is certainly fine. K1Bond007 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, withdraw nom - expanded substantially since nom date. Outriggr 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support withdrawing the nomination—I don't think I can do that unilaterally, but I'll ceremonially vote keep. Great job, everyone. --zenohockey 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is obviously no longer at death's door. Chrisd87 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now a good article. Maxamegalon2000 23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted at authors' request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brothel (soup kitchen)[edit]

I suspect hoax. abakharev 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy close, withdrawn, keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Nissen[edit]

Delete per WP:CORP- CrazyRussian talk/email 05:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the name all the time, and I don't think it's defunct. Official website here[17]. Seems to be part of Interstate Bakeries Corporation, so keep or merge more information into IBC. Google search does bring some relevant results and news articles that existed but have to be seen through cache due to age. Yanksox 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep move and expand Eluchil404 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad-johnson[edit]

Non notable organization. abakharev 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, spam.--Andeh 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Take another look, please. I think its notability is demonstrated by the independent coverage of the company's products. See the Sources section of the article, which was added after the two comments above. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite notable.--Tdxiang 07:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems at least marginally notable based on the coverage. Needs some heavy cleanup and a move to Conrad-Johnson, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable per above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep notable but needs serious expansion. -Seidenstud 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy Styles[edit]

Not very notable, doesn't meet WP:BAND, all this info is from a MySpace account, etc... Delete.Wickethewok 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reveal (rapper)[edit]

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) This is a rapper whose claim to notability is winning a rap battle in 2000. I did clean up this article and added a source showing that this feat was covered by the BBC, but this still seems like a localized phenomenon and isn't covered by WP:MUSIC. There might be more to this than just that though (though I'm not finding much) so, I'm bringing it here for your consideration. Grandmasterka 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, couldn't find anything on google. :\--Andeh 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google turned up [18], an interview showing Reveal to be an underground rapper who has contributed to a Poisonous Poets compilation CD but has yet to release a solo CD. WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Tdxiang 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Poisonous Poets was also deleted. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. Travelbird 13:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown. Proto///type 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Brown[edit]

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) This person's claim to fame is being a part of one radio show, and being the younger brother of a notable writer. This does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO, but there may be a lot more to it than this, so I am bringing it here for your consideration. Also, the article needs to be cleaned up a lot if kept. (Analysis of linguistic content? C'mon...) Grandmasterka 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown as the primary Doc Brown of note. Danny Lilithborne 05:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mentioned by Danny Lilithborne. HumbleGod 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown.--Tdxiang 07:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with 1.21 gigawatts at 88 mph per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Poisonous Poets, are one of the biggest acts in British hip-hop, and suggesting them for deletion is in my opinion ludicrous. They have received HEAVY rotation on mainstream radio, toured nationally, and in UK hip-hop at least, mixtapes are the main format of distribution, as there is far less backing from major labels compared to the US scene. Check my edit history for UK rap knowledge reliability. Yeanold Viskersenn 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect no allmusic entry for either Doc Brown or Poisonous Poets, so they don't appear to have any records which means they probably don't meet WP:MUSIC --Pboyd04 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on grounds of having had much national radio play. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04

Unless I'm misunderstanding WP:MUSIC, the artist only needs to meet ONE of the criteria, so whether or not they've released an album thats featured on allmujsic is irrelevent, as they have:

  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (BBC Radio 1)
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (Hip Hop Connection, Mixmag)
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

Poisonous Poets and therefore its members qualify for all of the above, so I fail to see why this article is at all being considered for deletion. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that membership of a notable group is sufficient for notability? Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete for blatant use of Wikipedia as a free webhost forbidden by WP:NOT. No other contributions unrelated to this page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebere[edit]

Does not appear to refer to anything prominent; one person's online username only. Person in question has no bio article on Wikipedia, and Google did not turn up anything of note HumbleGod 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without a doubt. This person is not significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article. --Phoenix Hacker 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Online handles are non-notable. Those of famous people would be better as a mention on their biography, even people such as Captain Crunch or Emmanuel Goldstein.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy created by User:Celebere, whose userpage and talk page redirect to this article and its talk page. Transparent vanity, but what's worse, lame transparent vanity. Opabinia regalis 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just like it was when Tan Ding Xiang was created (by me, long time ago). Vanity.--Tdxiang 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please do not userfy vanity, especially when the user has no other edits! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Andrew Lenahan for using Wikipedia as a free webhost. Has no contributions that are not related to this vanity page. I'm not endorsing userfication when they're gonna use the userspace for vanity only. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowkey[edit]

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) This one makes a few claims to notability which are not cited, but the three mixtapes and the rest of what's in the article do not meet WP:MUSIC (right now.) If anyone has evidence that this meets that standard, please bring it forward (any British hip-hop fans?) Otherwise, I don't think this belongs here. Grandmasterka 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Tdxiang 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, fails WP:MUSIC, Google inconclusive. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Poisonous Poets, and especially Lowkey, are one of the biggest acts in British hip-hop, and suggesting them for deletion is in my opinion ludicrous. They have received HEAVY rotation on mainstream radio, toured nationally, and in UK hip-hop at least, mixtapes are the main format of distribution, as there is far less backing from major labels compared to the US scene. Check my edit history for UK rap knowledge reliability. Yeanold Viskersenn 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one album for Lowkey according to allmusic, no albums for Poisonous Poets. Fails WP:MUSIC --Pboyd04 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:MUSIC, as Yeanold Viskersenn. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04

Unless I'm misunderstanding WP:MUSIC, the artist only needs to meet ONE of the criteria, so whether or not they've released an album thats featured on allmujsic is irrelevent, as they have:

  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (BBC Radio 1)
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (Hip Hop Connection, Mixmag)
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

Lowkey and Poisonous Poets qualify for all of the above, so I fail to see why this article is at all being considered for deletion. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Just because it's not something that famous in the USA, it's famous enough over here, and clearly meets WP:MUSIC. HawkerTyphoon 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons cited by Yeanold. Efortune 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Keep"'. Lowkey is without doubt one of the biggest up and coming hip-hop acts in the UK, has had several articles run on him in magazines such as Hip-Hop Connection and Undercover and has received heavy national airplay for the single Mad World (Donnie's Lament) released with fellow Poisonous Poet, Doc Brown. He has also toured nationally (though I'm not sure how to substantiate 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Interests and Anglo-American Foreign Policy[edit]

I doubt the possibility of an NPOV article at this title. I think the title frames matters in a way that guarantees POV (including simply the phrase "Anglo-American Foreign Policy"). Certainly the current article is highly POV (e.g. "There have been criticisms on the real motives of the United States and Britain to intervene in Iraq.Critics point out that fact that the only Iraqi government ministry that was not attacked was the oil ministry.The involvement of Halliburton in the Iraq has provided credibility to these charges," all this in Wikipedia's narrative voice, without clear citation (there is a lengthy set of ostensible references at the bottom of the article, but the current state of the article does not suggest something that has particularly used these references). I'd love to have someone prove me wrong and bring it toward NPOV—I'd probably settle for a few experienced Wikipedians promising a rescue—but I suspect that anything substantive here should simply be merged elsewhere. Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see some troubles with the article's neutrality (I am sure many will dispute that the motivations for the coups and actions presented were based purely on oil), and the article seems redundant with articles such as Petroleum politics which is more balanced article. This article may well be an accidental content fork. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Oil interests are only one of a large number of factors involved in the incidents described in the article. Article gives a different impression. Better to just chunk it and let the articles on individual countries/encounters explain the complexities. HumbleGod 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV slightly disputed.--Tdxiang 07:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no way this could ever be NPOV. This hasn't been touched by its creator in a little more than a week. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Essay rather than encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oddly using "Anglo-American" to mean either UK or US. Thus references to Vietnam, Falklands and Venezuela. Often a mix of conspiracy theories and weasel words. e.g.: "There have been claims that the British interest in invading the Falkland Islands was not only to eject Argentinian troops but to protect British interests in underwater oil reserves near the Falkland Islands." - if that's true then they've waited a long time to start drilling --IslaySolomon 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this in the same way that all the other POV oil essays get deleted, optionally redirect to Petroleum politics. MLA 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --TJive 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Fake[edit]

Article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, subject has written and complained about inaccuracies and states that he would prefer to see the article deleted. Subjects wishes aside, the article is of poor quality with little chance of improvement and failes to meet our criteria. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC per nominator.--Tdxiang 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - look at the GHits - [22], many positive media mentions from reputable sources. Other people who have requested articles about themselves be deleted haven't got their way. Ac@osr 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nice reviews aren't enough: release a damn record. -- GWO
  • Comment - the reviews are for his album.....Ac@osr 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not fail WP:MUSIC: he "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.". See e.g. [a very recent interview in Out Soon, in Dutch, where his Japanese tour is discussed, and where it is mentioned that he will be playing for the second time at Ten Days off (a Techno festival during the Gentse Feesten with 20,000 visitors. He will also play at the Dour festival in Belgium next month, and has played at Eurockéennes, a festival with a/o/ Depeche Mode, Muse, Morrissey and Sigur Ros. I can also offer a Newspaper review from De Morgen. Young artist with only one album, but has toured, has performed at major festivals (internationally), has received a lot of attention, ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fram (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. BoojiBoy 13:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/speedy Keep - The subject of an article cannot request its deletion because he does not like it. I removed any info that isn't blatantly true. He has released an album: see here!. He has toured internationally, which meets WP:BAND blantantly and explicitly. See here for the page on Resident Advisor about him: http://www.residentadvisor.net/dj_view.asp?ID=636. He has had his works reviewed by many reputable sources, which meets the criteria of being featured in multiple non-trivial works: here, here, and Googling for reviews brings up many reviews for non-trivial sources: here. Speedy keep if possible due to overwhelming evidence. Wickethewok 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC per the above points. If there's inaccurate data left after the recent cleanup, feel free to correct them. The artist's wishes are not relevant to inclusion. Kuru talk 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fram and Ac@osr. This is why article creators should add sources. Captainktainer * Talk 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. chocolateboy 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDGuard[edit]

Appears to be no more than an advertisement for the product. Parent company Eye4you is also being considered for deletion; both pages are primarily the work of the same user HumbleGod 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An advertisement is not allowed.--Tdxiang 07:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has anyone ever even heard of this software? The company is a small business that specialises in redistributing software developed by others. I am unable to find any real info about them, and so their notability is dubious indeed. Let me clarify this. I am able to verify their existence, but I was unable to verify that they have produced or distributed anything of note. --NMChico24 08:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, are you talking about 'Eye4you' the distributor, or 'Ramcke DatenTechnik GmbH' the developer? Kuru talk 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The company I refer to is Eye4you. That is the company this article was associated with, as the same user who posted that article (since deleted) posted this one. --NMChico24 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Indeed, I am actually employed by the company eye4you, we do distribute HDGuard which in turn is somewhat of a competitor of Deep Freeze (Deep Freeze has little presence in Australia and Europe). I absolutely love wikipedia, and thought it may have been a good idea to post articles on our company which is well known throughout the Australian public/private education arena, however, after reading through the WP articles I do agree that both the HDGuard and eye4you articles should be removed. Notability doubts and corporate _influence_ are present, please delete this article. (Comment also posted on the Deep Freeze (software) AfD dispute.) Nathan.manzi 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm really not seeing the usual media collage and references on the company's site - is there better data in the German version of the page (the company's home langauage)? Any idea of the install base? The Austrailian distributor (eye4you) had mention of some fairly large orders, but any idea outside of that region? Kuru talk 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, RDT supplys the whole of Europe (a bit more information on that on the German site), whereas eye4you supplies Asia Pacific. The German site [23] has some references to the install base. Over 300 schools in New Zealand and 668 schools in Australia are HDGuard users. The company is working on a client base media release. Nathan.manzi 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of railroads with a nickname ending in "Road"[edit]

It should be fairly obvious. Whenever I see this page, the first thing that comes to mind is: what? Meteshjj 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fairly obvious that this is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", as only a small number of railroads fit the list. --SPUI (T - C) 07:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Why do we need a list with five names of railroads? There's so few there's no point in having this page.--69.145.123.171 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who sees that for instance the NYC&StL has called the Nickel Plate Road and wonders how many others are like that. That's why I made it. --SPUI (T - C) 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete repeated attempts to avoid this process by removing tags. Yes, it's a short list - its also a listcruft list. With no redeeming qualities. Sorry.Bridesmill 07:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. I removed the PROD tag because that's how PROD bloody works - if you disagree YOU REMOVE IT. I removed the speedy tag because it was clearly not a speedy. --SPUI (T - C) 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a speedy, it would've been speedied. It was prodded instead which is a totally different process. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chill. — sjorford++ 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely useless list. This wouldn't even work as a category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what's the point? Fram 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bemused que? per Fram MLA 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and WP:DAFT, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay for trivia, not so useful here. HumbleGod 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, unreferenced trivia. I doubt anyone would actually be looking for this. Titoxd(?!?) 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and I second the WP:DAFT nomination. 23skidoo 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, arbitrary. I also don't need a list of Wikipedia users named after highway interchanges with a name ending in "interchange".  :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:30Z
  • Delete. SPUI's a well-informed guy, but this is railcruft. I'm sure there's a FoamerWiki somewhere that would be able to use this. Haikupoet 02:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The size of the list has nothing to do with how indiscriminate it is. Who's going to be looking for this? Grandmasterka 04:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BFilter[edit]

NN proxy Computerjoe's talk 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, a lot of listings on download sites, no independent news articles. Also advertisement. Tychocat 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of this entry I've lost a lot of respect for WP. I was very surprised when I heard about this software a couple of weeks ago that there was no listing on WP. "NN proxy"? "Download sites"? Crystal clear. I worry that some of the regulars here might be a bit thick.
    • NN means non-notable. See WP:N. This isn't personal, but the Wikipedia is not simply a listing of information. Computerjoe's talk 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please see WP:SOFTWARE while this is not yet policy it will show you the kind of information that we think is needed to be included in Wikipedia, also feel free to comment on the policy as it is still being developed. --Pboyd04 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the linked 'policy': "Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if ... The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian". Articles? ONLamp.com: Dru Lavigne. I know, so hard to find with all those "listings on download sites".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MessUnit[edit]

Strong Delete Non-notable article, appears to fail WP:WEB also badly writen. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, changed to strong delete as page creator is spamming the link to other articles.--Andeh 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Andeh 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And, I must say, the above seems like a consensus to me. Tevildo 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getix Interactive[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, vanity/spam, crystal ballish, not written in npov. Created by user Getixinteractive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Andeh 07:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site was also built using freewebs.--Andeh 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Flying Hospitals[edit]

article consist just of advertising Travelbird 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetside Universe[edit]

Contested prod. nn fansite, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 482,000. Delete. Oldelpaso 07:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already fixed the problem with the site type being "fansite". I have changed it to the proper title of "Gaming". I don't understand why you have requested a deletion after I fixed it.

Credema 09:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not what Planetside Universe is described as in the article, but rather whether or not Planetside Universe is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. I do not think Planetside Universe meets the criteria in Wikipedia: Notability (web), hence the deletion listing. Oldelpaso 10:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. All links go to itself. Also advertisement. Tychocat 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and Alexa rank in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad for non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable even though I loved PS back in it's heyday. MLA 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps we can put an external link in Planetside, but this article is no different from millions of other fansites and WP:WEB and Alexa agree. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Creep[edit]

Another non-notable band. The CSD was opposed by a usr who claimed 3,500 Google hits, but there are only 500 unique hits, none of them that seem very reputable. A nearly empty VH1 link exists, but I'd say this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro5 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Delete I don't like to do the "per nom" thing, but honestly, the above says it all. They broke up after their debut, which, to my reckoning, had no chart toppers to speak of, so where's the notability? --NMChico24 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability pretty much nonexistent if they broke up right after their debut. An empty VH1 link doesn't help, really. Signed to non-notable label. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. HumbleGod 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Redirect to MIT Media Lab. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Media Lab Physics and Media[edit]

Exactly same material is covered in MIT Media Lab article. Currently there is no need for a separate article. Also the article title is not descriptive. Others considered it redundant as well, in Talk:MIT Media Lab. --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Commodore Triplets[edit]

Fails Verification and Notability, possibly Vanity, with very little Possibility. Teke 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. Also, no notability stated or implied. Tychocat 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as soon as possible Fram 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable vanity Resolute 05:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if they were one of the first to start wearing Commodore robes (which hasn't been verified), I can not see how this would be encyclopedic. -- JamesTeterenko 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could see a mention of this on the Carolina Hurricanes or Mike Commodore articles if it were sourced... and this weird fashion statement does infact exist as observed during the Stanley Cup Playoffs... but... I think this article is pure vanity. DMighton 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run these goobers over with a Zamboni per nom. RGTraynor 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusing, but still delete. BoojiBoy 13:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-group.  RasputinAXP  c 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mildly amusing, but no more notable than those guys in the fancy orange suits at Rexall Place. Doogie2K (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: please, as soon as possible scsgoal31 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati[edit]

Notability in question. --NMChico24 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 17 unique Google hits, Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reviews listed under "References" seem to indicate notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What reviews? When I click the "review" link in this article (which points to a pdf file), I get "page cannot be displayed." --NMChico24 19:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - every woman on this list, "Sixteen Women who Shame Islam", deserves her own article (and at least one other already has one). These women are leading Islamic feminists and risk their lives more so than any early American feminist ever has. Rklawton 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, if it's not on video, it didn't happen. Uh. No verifiability, no article. My bad. Rklawton 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, keep. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the list? I searched for it, and I was unable to find it. There are a few random ones that come up in blogs, but I didn't see this person's name. Also, the sites listed as external links here really have nothing to do with her activism as a persecuted muslim. They verify her as a lesbian and a poet, and her involvement with CNW, but nothing about death threats or anything that would verify those claims. --NMChico24 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect it may be helpful to search in Arabic since that's the source language. At any rate, the cross-language, cross-cultural aspect will make this biography more difficult to evaluate. Any Arabic readers out there care to lend a hand? Rklawton 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I was unable to find this list either (even when searching in Arabic), and it's a clear vanity article, I have changed my argument back to userfy and delete. The notability mentioned here is unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete unless this list can be sourced and shown to be notable - I can't find evidence of it. It's a vanity article which reads like promotion of a colourful but non-notable person. NMChico24 makes good points. Dlyons493 Talk 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--the list was published on shiachat.com and has been brought down because of intervention by the authorities. I have heard of it though. --this was an issue in boston, and death threats weren't publicized but sent directly to the women on the list. they actually aren't permitted by authorities to publish them; but the list definitely existed and she was on it.

  • Comment then it's unverifiable. Even if it were still on shiachat.com that would be unofficial and in all probability non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not interfere with the AfD process by changing other editors contributions. Dlyons493 Talk 04:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gillam in Heaven[edit]

A non-notable web comic written up by Gillam. Pure vanity. -- RHaworth 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN webcomic hosted by Geocities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity webcomic. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page for non-notable (and jaw-droppingly awful) web animation. --IslaySolomon 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - Eluchil404 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh mcmanners[edit]

User:Downwards tagged this article as speedy delete with a rationale of "vanity article", but I did not feel it passed CSD A7 since notability was asserted. So, here it is for procedural reasons and I abstain. hateless 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, but move to Hugh McManners. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search at google for "Sunday Times" "Hugh McManners", and Amazon for "Hugh McManners" shows that he was the ST defence correspondent and has written several books. How much of the rest is true, I have no idea. The article needs references, and I will tag it. Mr Stephen 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Mr Stephen. Not a speedy keep candidate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable journalist at minimum (have moved as suggested) Saga City 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly a notable journalist. --JennyRad 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr Stephen Maxamegalon2000 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to existence. Computerjoe's talk 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistence[edit]

I'm hesitant to nominate a page that has been around for a long time, but despite its age, it doesn't seem to contain much that is obviously useful. There's no citations, and it looks like it's mainly (perhaps totally) OR and speculation. And while I'm not a philosophy major, it doesn't feel particularly deep to me. Your thoughts please. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is OR, and its title essentially describes its sources - nonexistent. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Existence. There is a fair amount of old philosophy content that dates from the early days of the project; a lot of it isn't all that good, at least by current standards, but remains worth keeping. Not sure we need separate pages for Existence and Nonexistence, though. Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existence and merge what useful/verifiable content there may be. Strange that this is so old but has so few edits or incoming links - I guess that's a hint that it doesn't need to exist. Opabinia regalis 16:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - even a merge and/or redirect seems pretty generous for an article that is almost entirely speculation. The article on existence is well-written and well-cited; if its editors feel this topic deserves mention there, let them write it up from scratch with proper citations. HumbleGod 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existence. We should leave those editors a note so they can determine if anything is worth merging. I don't see a need to delete when we can redirect. Redirecting leaves the old material available for possible merging and rewriting by people who care to look up sources. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. There doesn't seem much that isn't WP:OR to merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existence. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existence. TerriersFan 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — FireFox 10:05, 04 July '06

Fried briefs[edit]

This has to be a joke, right?? Does it really exist? Jaunio 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - obviously some sort of absurd joke. I've tagged it as a speedy (CSD G1: patent nonsense). Zetawoof(ζ) 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP. Not a joke, does exist. --Torrmallin 09:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previous AfD vote was clear: the article was speedily deleted. -- Ec5618 09:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drakengard characters[edit]

An anon user User:84.184.85.201 User_talk:84.184.85.201 added an AfD banner to the article List of Drakengard characters but didn't create Articles for deletion/List of Drakengard characters. He or she posted the following message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Drakengard characters :

Reason for proposed deletion: Serious POV. Wrong information. Not enough information (the main character has less information then many of the minor characters) Information outside of the the article scope (listing of institutions). Gives Wikipedia itself as source. Necessary characters, institutions and concepts can be worked into the main article (they may have been there before someone created this article as an URV, where after it had been deleted). --84.184.85.201 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon user has also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia (second nomination). I do not take a position yet on this AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the anon's nomination. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game cruft. Merge it back to the original article. -- GWO
    • Then why are you voting delete? Merging doesn't require deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That list is so badly written, it is not mergable with the main article. --84.184.110.108 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Additionally I do think, that neither the game nor its characters are notable enought to warrant several articles for it/them. The article itself isn't too large yet and would benefit from a section about the institutions and characters. I do not recommend merge since the list in question is POV in most parts and partially wrong(I'm the anon user in question. I couldn't create this page, that is why I took another recourse. Though I don't know why my comment on the other AfD is relevant?)--84.184.85.201 15:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under criteria G1. David | Talk 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Biddigan[edit]

I'm not even sure this is a real article, could it be a hoax?? Jaunio 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Spokes[edit]

Why is he notable?? Anyone know why?? Jaunio 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep; we shouldn't be nominating stuff on AfD when no-one wants it deleted, just because of what someone suspects might be written in policy somewhere. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbull & Asser[edit]

I personally don't believe this page should be deleted. Simply listing here to stop the warring regarding a speedy deletion. Lets get the debate happening. MyNameIsNotBob 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Its a notable fashion label and I have re written the article. During the time I was writting it however it was deleted and I re made the page and its been nominated again for reposted deleted content which it is not. Woldo 09:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has to be notable, formed in 1885 and still operating today. Also has over 38,000 google results. MyNameIsNotBob 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as the nomination seems to be some kind of misunderstanding; there appears to be no-one actually advocating the deletion of the article. But why is almost half the content in a "trivia" section? If these thing are significant enough to be mentioned, they should be integrated into the main article text. up+land 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that although I put up the speedy repost tag because the article was deleted previously, I don't particularly think the article should be deleted. But policy is policy, yes? Some citations other than the company website would be useful. Kevin 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found two articles with their name in, one major via google news.[24]--Andeh 11:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is not policy. Policy is actually a kind of shrew that inhabits the foot of Mount Everest and lives a very sad life providing food for sherpa guides and the mountain-climbing suicides who love them. Like all shrews, Policy is known for its need to be the centre of attention, but we can safely ignore it much of the time — we do what policy says when it's a good idea, not merely for the sake of it. After all, it's only a big rat, when all's said and done. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Clan[edit]

original research, apparent use of WP as webhost for advertising this group. PROD removed by anonymous poster without comment. Tychocat 10:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add (more) references, etc. Have featured in Australian media on several occasions, doesn't appear to be advertising. JPD (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International group with a 20-year history and a glossy magazine which details their activities. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs cleanup. Notable group. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Keep per above + good to have the occasional article on Australia. Comment about prod removal is completely irrelevant since this was seemingly prodded in error. --JJay 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 18 mentions in the Australian media for this group so seem verifiable enough. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Australia-wide phenomenon with long history and large membership and plenty of media attention. —Pengo 06:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Pengo above. --Roisterer 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. seems a valid reference regarding the Urban Exploration group Gonzoxl5
Just for reference, the above comment is by IP 84.70.151.225 and at this point in time the en.Wikipedia dosn't seem to have an editor Gonzoxl5.--blue520 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of twelve[edit]

Neologism. No relevant google hits. Also Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 10:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've seen soooooooooooooo many neologism articles that contain a variation of the sentence saying the term has "rapidly gained popularity in recent years." It's an earmark of non-notability. This is no different. Grandmasterka 04:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine merrick[edit]

Thoroughly Non-notable. No relevant google hits. Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 10:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, or even verifiable, as far as I can see. JPD (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Joseph Merrick article contains no reference to a daughter. This, plus no relevent google hits, probably equals a hoax. --IslaySolomon 11:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as almost certain hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax - 'autobiography' text has been revised between edits. Yomangani 12:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if not a hoax (unlikely), being the daughter of a famous person doesn't make you notable. Ace of Sevens 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSG_Partners[edit]

Fails WP:CORP,WP:V,WP:NPOV,advertising. Implies it is an investment bank when it isn't. Yomangani 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom says it all. HumbleGod 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "a theme driven approach to base it's core decisions around" - don't I just love these jargon phrases. Non-notable. TerriersFan 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantom Janitor[edit]

Basically, this originally had some... fanciful tales. It was tagged for speedy, but I didn't think it was incoherent enough, so I prodded it instead for being hoaxy. The current version is better, but doesn't really tell anything much, and it's... something that nets me 14 whole google hits, 8 without dupes. Unverifiable stuff, I say, and just the type of stuff that urban legends are already chock full of. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V also it would be nice if the RAW mentioned in the article didn't point to the disambig page so that we knew what they were talking about. --Pboyd04 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. -Seidenstud 06:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. At least that's what the history section tells me. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Future (Sex Pistols Tribute Band)[edit]

CSD A7 deserved and inappropriately removed by article creator. Also meets A3, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, etc... GRBerry 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was hoax. DS 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Hobo[edit]

Either a mistake, a hoax, or extremely non-notable. The "alternative title" 'Only a Hobo' is an existing song, which has been available officially, and "like a hobo" is part of the lyrics to another Dylan song (Bob Dylan's 115th Dream), which make sit hard to separate potential Google hits for the subject of the article from other, unrelated ones, but even so, at first glance I can't find any references to it. So at least it is unverifiable, which is enough reason for a deletion Fram 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, strikes me as a mistake/non-notable. Google searches for the song in reference to the one event where it was apparently played (Concert for Bangaladesh") doesn't reveal anything. Author of article probably confused it with "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream." HumbleGod 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to complete absence of sources. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do-not Delete, this song does in fact exist and is not simply a mistaken version of "115th Dream." It is hard to name sources when stictly speaking there are none apart from the recording itself. However, this reference has been added to the page. If it did not violate copyright, a sample of the song would have also been added to the page.--The-Folk-Master 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, ummm, that's not really the type of reference we need. We see WP:V. This article is completely unverifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, how do you reference a piece of music that is not documented anywhere except a bootleg recording?! If you could post an exaple it'd be greatly appreciated, instead of trawling through the link you provided and finding no help. The fact the song is NOT documented anywhere else is precisely the reason i wrote the article in the first place!!! The song may not be of huge significance but i thought it noteworthy that there are TWO recordings of a completly undocumented song by the great Bob Dylan!
        • Comment, how can we possibly know that it exists then? References include reputable sources that talk about it. You're also likely violating the guidelines on original research. Come on, read the links. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, ok ok. It's not original research because the article is simply stating the name of the song and its content. However, the only source of the article is the recording itself. Is there any way i can upload the song itself to give credibility to the article? If not, what is the real problem?--The-Folk-Master 05:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Original research: you found out about, listened to, and "researched" the song on your own. The Wikipedia is not a place for unique research, ideas, discoveries, but for those which have already been researched by someone outside the Wiki and published (hence the need for sources). Again, read those links. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Public Computer This IP is a public computer, the article is a hoax as is User:The-Folk-Master. This individual has been barred from these facilities. He should not trouble you further. You have my appologies. --150.101.103.208 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. seems hoaxish to me Alphachimp talk 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supersqueeze challenge[edit]

Utterly non notable (4 distinct Google hits) one-off local promo campaign: page is written more as an advertisement than as an encyclopeid article as well Fram 11:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Armstrong[edit]

Based on the edit history, it seems to fail WP:AUTO; 660 ghits for "David G. Armstrong"&podiatry, so not particularly notable? Neier 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dayfeed[edit]

Non notable: entry at Allmusic.com is empty: doesn't match WP:MUSIC, have only some regional importance, only made one EP Fram 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenote entry has a record of this group. Nedro 10:27, July 4th 2006 (CST)

  • Delete per above. -Seidenstud 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've also never heard of this group, despite being in the same city and the same industry (not that that's of real importance.) Grandmasterka 05:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep - the redir doesn't really make sense given Neier's information. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertoni, Milano[edit]

contains no useful information. --Jak123 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and Move to "GDE Bertoni". The company's name has changed ([25]), and they seem to make a few more notable trophies than just the World Cup® trophy ( [26]. ) Neier 12:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but there really ought to be more in the article to justify its existence. HumbleGod 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Fifa World Cup and mention him there. OSU80 17:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would think that the company that makes these prestigious trophies should deserve an article here. It needs sourcing and expansion. Grandmasterka 05:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Fifa World Cup and mention him there. Is there an echo? Perhaps, but this is also my view. TerriersFan 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ? It's a company, not a person... And they make more awards than the world cup trophies. Grandmasterka 06:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Delete. Wow, I thought this was an article for a web site on American Eskimos. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskyworld[edit]

Website Advertisment, will never help anyone. Wildwobby 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, was willing to give the article benefit of the doubt, but its author has only edited this page and another which it links to. A number of hits on Google, but nothing too notable, IMO. HumbleGod 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole article appears to be an advertisement trying to convince flightsimmers to join a poorly managed, unnotable organization. 45,000 Google hits as opposed to around 300,000 for VATSIM and IVAO. Also read this Canwolf 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Brookie.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Malley[edit]

Nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piroroadkill (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 July 2006

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurgen Vries[edit]

  • Merge and Redirect to Darren Tate. Pseudonyms don't need their own articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, Darren Tate seems notable enough. HumbleGod 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. His most successful track in terms of chart came with "The Opera Song" which featured the vocal talents of Charlotte Church, credited on the sleeve as CMC. This track charted #3 in the UK according to the article. Notable enough for me. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:26Z

Redondo Beach, Washington[edit]

This article is on the same topic as Redondo, Des Moines, Washington. I would normally ask for a merge, but there was so little new info in this article that it did not matter. Will an admin please speedy delete? --Tjss(Talk) 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy delete candidate. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Kumar Saroj[edit]

  • Delete Listed for deletion for the following reasons. No citation cited. Could not clarify the information with any of the friends from Sri Lanka or India. No valid internet site could be found. Found this article has too little importance to be written in Wikipedia. --16[Sechzehn] 22:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, might be worth noting on Hindi Wikipedia or something related, but doesn't seem notable to the English-speaking world. HumbleGod 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: if it's notable enough for the Hindi Wikipedia, then it is notable enough for the English Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Zoe. The English Wikipedia is named because it's written in the English language. It doesn't exclusively cover English material (that would cause Systematic Bias). If it can be sourced or shown acceptable in the Hindi Wikipedia, it's appropriate here. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per this, I do not think it is a WP:HOAX, and as such he is notable. Batmanand | Talk 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the reference Batmanand found seems convincing evidence of notability to me. -- Danny Yee 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Batmanand -- Lost 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, designed broadcasts and new programming for the premier entertainment service for 60 million people. And a strong note of support for Zoe's comment above. Hornplease 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. This is not an English-centric encyclopedia; it is an international encyclopedia that happens to be in English. Grandmasterka 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Bully[edit]

I was trying to clean this article up when another editor, User:MarkGallagher, deleted it speedily with the comment: "not an encyclopaedia article; arguably a copyvio". The deleted version probably was a copyvio and a bad article; the current one is not. I think it passes WP:CORP by virtue of independent coverage, although I hadn't heard of it before. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discing[edit]

Non notable (does it exist?). The word "discing" has many meanings, mainly in farming and with records, but this one seems to be unknown. Not verifiable, so delete... Fram 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dictionary.com has never heard of this definition, so it's a neologism at best. Ace of Sevens 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Rklawton 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly exists, though I can only vouch for its popularity in my own state of Western Australia. Perhaps it should be renamed, or merged with water sports? Battle Ape 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified as not a neologism. Can Battle Ape supply a WP:RS? If verified as not a neologism, move to Discing (water sport) and create a disambiguation page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. I've searched and there are no Internet sites referencing it at all. But then, there are very few sites about waterskiing either. I KNOW it exists; I've gone discing, I've seen other people disc, and I've provided a photo. There just aren't any mainstream sources. 202.72.148.102 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I was sure I was signed in...Battle Ape 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Copyvio. The copyrighted text is still in this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the nomination was Keep, after I removed the copyvio content. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseDB[edit]

Spam for a software package. Text is mostly copyvio from [27]. Staecker 12:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and cleanup if necessary 788,000 Google hits as well as 17 Google news hits is a pretty strong indicator that this is indeed a noteworthy product. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use your discretion, but Andrew Lenahan's comments should be considered. I do not have any issues whatever be the decision. Nikkhils
  • Keep, but the promotional language needs to be replaced with balanced presentation, objective third-party reviews, etc. Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are 563 distinct hits. I am familiar with quite a few Open Source and database products and had never heard of this one. Various claims need substatiation from a source other than their own website and anon wiki editors. Dlyons493 Talk 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone seems to have already down-toned the contents. Dlyons493, this one is a new kid on the block. Infact the PostgresQL page on Wikipedia, already points to the enterprisedb webpage.Nikkhils
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Non-Stop Action Wrestling[edit]

NN "backyard wrestling" organization created by some kids. For a sample of their professionalism, check out XNA Battle Royale at youtube. Staecker 12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelabotswana[edit]

non-notable company, advertisement Travelbird 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FileBull[edit]

per WP:WEB - an advert for a nn web site Ioannes Pragensis 13:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Hong Chinese Restaurant[edit]

probably Non-notable restaurant, should be deleted unless someone can confirm that this place is somehow well known locally Travelbird 13:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Maybe, I'm a little tired but it is a little confusing and even the news article is more of a humanity piece. I really don't see notability. Yanksox 13:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable local former restaurant. --DarkAudit 13:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kinda sad story, and while fondly remembered by the locals, I don't think this defunct non-chain local fast-food restaurant is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local restaurant, non-notable as per WP:CORP.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally nonnotable restaurant. Bwithh 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:CORP standards, doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not even around anymore. Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 Best Companies for Working Mothers[edit]

listcruft and not at all encyclopedic hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merck Veterinary Manual[edit]

Advert Ladybirdintheuk 13:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merck Veterinary Manual is an online reference manual for animal health care. It is published by Merck & Co., Inc. and Merial Limited.
It includes articles on the different organ systems and health issues for many species of animal.
I think this is a genuinely useful site. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be okay after major purging Bwithh 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a highly notable reference work that deserves an article.--Runcorn 19:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-known Dlyons493 Talk 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey slap[edit]

Nonnotable neologism, apparently has only happened on the Australian version of Big Brother NawlinWiki 13:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term pre-dates this particular incident and the reference to big brother pushes it beyond a dictdef. Ace of Sevens 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect into Teabagging, were an alternative name (Windmilling) is alredy present.--blue520 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't quite the same thing as teabagging. If anything, I'd move windmilling to this article. Ace of Sevens 15:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently a notable term that has seen use and exposure on television. Also, apparently can be a crime. Seems interesting and worthy of an article. Yanksox 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well known term, and there are MANY pages on wikipedia about sexual terms like this. Teabagging is a good example, and a turkey slap is a much more well known term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.67.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 05:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately. Teabagging seems to be a different practice that would need its windmilling component separated out (split) anyway. —Pengo 06:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i had a comment before, but id just like to mention this term isn't native to australia. i spent 6 months in stockholm last year and people there knew what it meant. like the swedes who spoke english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.43.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is not something that has only happened in Big Brother, and the term has been used many times before Big Brother Australia. --JD[don't talk|email] 10:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI see no reason why this should be deleted.--Sebjac 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWell known term. -Starlet 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - what?? It's sexual assault, whatever fancy name you want to give it. -- 9cds(talk) 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand it being an offensive term, but that itself does not merit deletion. Deletion would have to be judged upon (sigh, I can't believe I am saying this) on whether or not it is a notable form of somekind of sexual assault. There are quite a few of sexual slang terms that exist on Wikipedia that are ptobably a felony or considered immoral. But that exist on here because in someway, shape or form, they are notable. Some examples are: this, this, this, this (which survived AfD twice, and others. So, I don't think how offensive, degrading, or revolting the term is merits deletion in this circumstance. Yanksox 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox, and I second everything he says - well put. If only encyclopedias could be restrictive, eh? Srose talk 11:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Keep it. Encyclopedias should not be self-censoring.

  • Keep per all above. In particular, a redirect would not be appropriate as (and I can't believe I'm typing this in an AfD) teabagging is not the same thing as turkeyslapping -- Synapse 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Yanksox. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinct notable concept. Ansell 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PWI 500[edit]

A large list of 15 years worth of 500 wrestlers per year. We don't even have an article like this on the Maxim Hot 100 which I would argue is much more notable than this. Metros232 14:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a summary and perhaps a list of the #1 each year. Definitely don't keep the big lists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case then, Delete as redundant. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as poposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks; I was considering nomming the list myself. Besides the gigantic-ness, the copyright status of such a list is debatable - the decision on whether to include any given wrestler is arbitrarily made by Pro Wrestling Illustrated, as is the order, so it's considered an original creation of PWI. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Over the top and a breach of copyright. Cloachland 02:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion. I am just notifying you that I have reduced the list to only the top 10 wrestlers for each year. Maybe this will keep the page going.--Desmond Hobson 07:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superman arcade and video games[edit]

This is a plain list with no article and only duplicates the video games section of Superman in popular culture and Category:Superman arcade and video games. Ace of Sevens 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Family[edit]

Nonnotable teenage aspiring anime artists. NawlinWiki 14:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NudE (indie band)[edit]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Samaj Sahyog Samiti[edit]

Multiple requests for notability examples without meaningful result; minimal Google hits (many to link-farms), difficult to verify. Indian langauge searches turn up similiar, minimal results. Rklawton 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - No claim to notability - variation of spelling of "Sahyog" to "Sahayog" gives 8 more nn-google hits. No luck even with google search on the founder's name. Could be a thinly veiled advert. --Gurubrahma 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost a weak delete, but this article's been given enough time to prove its notability, to no avail. HumbleGod 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the text is copyvio from [28] . It's not clear whether this article is just an advertisement. Dlyons493 Talk 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I feel it has potential, but only if someone (preferably the original author) is willing to resolve the criticisms made.-- Tivedshambo (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Delete" because, while this appears to be a worthy organization, Wikipedia's reliability comes first -- notability must be verifiable using credible sources, which we still don't have. For all we really know, this could be some charity scam seeking to defraud donors using the seeming respectability afforded by a Wikipedia article.
I note that the article's creator, Adarshsamaj may also been have editing as 203.101.108.76. If not, I'm dispappointed Adarshsamaj never returned to edit this or anything else on Wikipedia, leaving me feeling this was just another "drive-by vanity submission".
Many thanks to the other editors that tried to give this article a chance.
--A. B. 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I speedied this, but was rightfully petitioned to revert it, so I did. I stuck prod on there to keep the motivation for fixing the article, but no one has really come through. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bipack[edit]

There are no sources to back up this article. All I could find was a company named BiPack. I vote to delete. OSU80 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whilst I have yet to find any sources that actually describe the process explicitly, research turns up enough ancillary material to convince me that there is a cinematographic effect known as bipacking. However, some references to the process (example) imply that it is an effect performed using an optical printer not an in-camera effect. This research was just cursory. I'm confident that actual books on the art of cinematography will provide better sources. Keep. Uncle G 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Page author insists the method is listed under special effects, which it is not (that I could see), and even the article says it has fallen into disuse. However, a number of Google hits (in film forums mostly) ask questions about the process, so it could conceivably be of some use to film students, etc. HumbleGod 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of sources. At most merge this with special effects if the proper sources are listed. mmeinhart 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before the use of digital effects and optical printing, the use of bipacks was a well-known technique used for a number of purposes. As described in this article, it was used for one form of travelling matte. I believe it was also used in some pioneering color processes. The topic is encyclopedic; the actual content of the current article needs sources, but seems reasonable enough as far as it goes. It certainly wasn't made up or anything like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. Here are some Google Books sources: Hands-on Manual for Cinematographers; By David Samuelson (use for travelling matte); Restoration of Motion Picture Film By Paul Read, Mark-Paul Meyer for a description of the uses of bipacks in early color systems, and mentions "many of these systems used regularly available bipack film stocks made by most large film manufacturers." Cinematography By Peter Ettedgui has a diagram of a bipack. Of the 44 Google Books hits, about half are significant mentions in books about cinematography. Our own article on Technicolor mentions the use of bipacks in Technolor Process 4 from 1934-54. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was good research. A couple of those (Reed/Meyer and Samuelson) are worth mentioning in the article. Uncle G 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I intend to when I get a Round Tuit. I need to get a somewhat better understanding of the subject before I start writing about it. Not a good understanding, mind you, just a somewhat better understanding than I have now. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dpbsmith--Nick Y. 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Aaron Rowe[edit]

Non-notable writer whose only claim to fame was a blog he plagiarized for. It appears that he evaded the previous VfD by using meat puppets, and no significant improvement to the article has been made since then. The only references are a Google search, the offline blog for which he plagiarized, and a forum post. 141.117.57.26 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. NawlinWiki 17:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I moved this to its own new page, but the old debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Aaron Rowe. Mangojuicetalk 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. So he's a reverend with the Universal Life Church? Who the hell isn't? HumbleGod 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:23Z
  • Delete per nom. Not even close to fullfilling WP:WEB or WP:BIO. Dunno how it slipped past the last AfD, but let's drive a stake into its heart, to be sure. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How in the world has this survived so long? Such non-notable vanity. Grandmasterka 06:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that Rowe has done more than the entry lets on (his play Bunker is supposedly being produced as a motion picture, for example, and his work has apparently been published in national magazines). However, I don't know if that really meets the criteria for notability, and so I don't have an opinion either way if this should be deleted. Sad to see it go, though. Frankg 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Layer[edit]

A speedy/hangon/deleted/recreated/speedy/hangon case. Speedied for CSD-A7 lack of notability, and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Some discussion on talk page between author and another editor is of interest (author has tried but apparently failed to find sources for notability - or perhaps failed to understand the purpose of them?). Needs review here rather than a speedy. Technical nomination - no opinion from me.➨ ЯEDVERS 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fogerty[edit]

Contested Speedy. Probable vanity entry. Apparently a 23-year-old who has worked at the Sunday Times for 4 months. No assertion of notability beyond that. Google search returns absolutely nothing. Fan1967 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Author has blanked the AfD tag, probably will again. Fan1967 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. If anyone wants to consult this for merging into List of Playstation 2 network games, I am willing to undelete to user space. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 network games containing a setup utility[edit]

Listcruft that will never be complete, has vague inclusion criteria. Prod removed by anon without explanation. Delete. Kimchi.sg 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was critical delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical Times[edit]

Non-notable fictional blog, with a confusing article claiming it's been running since 1886. Exasperated Bees 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was no consensus. Hard to call, but I count 7 delete and 6 keep, discounting votes from anons/new accounts. I'm going to say that copyvio is not an issue; this edit [31] constitutes a total rewrite, and I'm going to delete the history that goes before that. Mangojuicetalk 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


James Hyman[edit]

A quite astonishing vanity article. As per the article creation notice, which reads "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies." -- The Anome 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Narcissus would be put to shame. Also seems to fail WP:BIO. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreeing with Mr. Lefty. Treebark 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may suck, but the person is notable [32] Note he was "responsible for producing, directing and editing over 250 pop videos." It rates a cleanup tag and thorough scrubbing. I may hold my nose and start on it after lunch. Rklawton 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a IMDB entry is NOT proof of notability. The "250 pop videos" claim needs to be sourced and verified. If he mainly acted as a MTV editor for (as he says) "clips" than he is NOT notable like a director would be. Bwithh 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was too hard to see that through all the vanity. :) --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DO NOT DELETE Don't understand your requests to delete here. This guy is a DJ, presenter, broadcaster etc. as explained in the text, he is cross referenced to another Wiki entry, Aphex Twin 'Come To Daddy'). There are other similar broadcasters not deleted e.g. Karl Pilkington. Disagree too that it fails the WP:BIO - :
"The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
Notability can be determined by:
Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
An independent biography
Name recognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs)
Let's work on the assumption that you are not James Hyman. Then we should delete this article as a copyright violation, as it is a more-or-less verbatim copy from his home page. Alternatively, if you are, perhaps you should read the banner above the article creation box, which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."
Which of these two policies would you like us to apply? -- The Anome 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, User:82.27.228.4, I note that you created the link from Come to Daddy that you use to justify the notability of this article. -- The Anome 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, unless "250 pop videos" claim can be verified from a reliable source - and if he wasn't simply a MTV clip editor for most of these videos. This man is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo vain and self-promoting, so extra caution in sourcing required. Bwithh 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "over 250 pop videos": I can't find them on his IMDB entry. [33] Can you provide any evidence for this? -- The Anome 16:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Kate, a fan of James Hyman's. I've e-mailed him and he has no problem with this Wiki page. I would re-iterate that what James Hyman has achieved is valid to list just like other presenters on here who similarly para-phrase their bios e.g. Karl Pilkington, another Xfm DJ like James. Would you like me to re-write James's entry just simplifying it instead of copying his home-page which he has no objection to? Thanks. Also, if you want a link to the videos that he produced/edited/directed, it's: http://www.jameshyman.com/blog/archives/Green%20BandanaProjects.xls Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 4 July 2006
  • Comment The bulk of the videos/clips on the "Green Bandana Projects" list linked by the User-I-will-be-assuming-for-now-is-a-James-Hyman-fan-named-Kate-and-not-at-all-for-instance-his-personal-assistant-or-indeed-Hyman-himself are listed as remixes/edits for MTV clps or advertising spots. Also, this is not an independently verifiable reliable source Bwithh 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I can gather is that's he's edited clips of famous people and possibly had brief, tangential interactions with them. Before they were famous. He "has no problems with this Wiki page"? Now there's a shocker. Opabinia regalis 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DO NOT DELETE Hi, this is Kate again, actually, many of those videos were the ACTUAL/ORIGINAL video for the artist in question e.g. Fatboy Slim "Santa Cruz", Prince "Pink Cashmere", Moby "C'Mon On Baby" etc. Check the new Fatboy Slim CD/DVD best of release which has the "Santa Cruz" video on there, directed by James Hyman. I understand you all have to do your jobs round here but I'm only trying to maintain a listing for James + his work!!!! Phew!!! There is this grey area on what's allowed/not allowed/notable. I can give loads of other examples for similar presenters on here which is simply their bio. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs)
Yes... I'm sure you're just trying to do your job too, ahem. Sorry, WP:AGF to myself Bwithh 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kate, are you the Kate mentioned by James Hyman as "team member Kate" in this blog entry, and pictured with him here, by any chance? -- The Anome 17:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure all James' assistants are his biggest fans too. Bwithh 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Maybe we should reconsider all of this. She's hot. Rklawton 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. It takes different strokes. Bwithh 17:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I count about 43 or 44 "original pop videos" listed on the unverified non-independent source, the Green Bandana client list. Also the roles are simply listed as "Production/Direction" for the Green Bandana company - it does not specify what role this exactly was (support for production/direction? assistant producer? amorphous executive producer credit?) or if James Hyman himself was directly involved. But again, this is an unverified non-independent source. Bwithh 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep - He does seem to be notable, in addition to being a self-promoting ass. More on his video work can be found here here. The article needs to be re-worked almost completely though, as right now it stinks of street-teamery and POV Artw 17:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I'm ready to believe he was director of a number of music videos, but I am not yet convinved that his track record is of sufficient encyclopedic notability Bwithh 17:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much from Kate, an avid listener to his weekly Xfm radio shows not the one in the pictures and admit as the * Reluctant Keep says, I am a bit of a 'street-teamer' I guess but not as simple/strange as Artw. Thank you again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs) 4, July 2006
May I humbly draw your attention to James' blog entry of October 2005, where he celebrates "our 2nd anniversary together" with one Kate Unger (see linked page). What a remarkable coincidence that our contributor has the same name as James' friend. - The Anome 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...hahahahahahahaha.... very good work, Anome!! Budgiekiller 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love their blog. Here's the profoundly disturbing album cover art for James' Tarantino mashup:[34]. I wonder Quentin would think about this? (though I'm surprised his blog has google ads - that's not very hip. Take notes for the team, Kate, take notes!) Bwithh 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I think we can all agree that this article breaches the "no self promotion" principle, can I suggest that we delete it, and see how long it takes before someone who isn't James, his girlfriend, one of his other friends, co-workers, employees, relatives, or other representatives, takes to create it, backed up by independent, verifiable, sources? -- The Anome 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Even if Kate above isn't the wife of the uh... Hyman team, she just admitted that she's a "street teamer". I think its possible that this guy is worthy of an article but not in this way. More sources needed imho.Bwithh 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How bizarre! You don't think that entries for loads of other presenters/DJs/broadcasters etc. aren't written by street-teamers, PR companies, fans etc. etc. Weak reasoning!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs) 4, July 2006
This would be the "lots of other people do it" defence, then? -- The Anome 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, actually, the articles aren't written by paid representatives. And if they are, they are likely to be targetted for scrutiny just as your article is being so here. Bwithh 18:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, so are you allowing this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hyman which was not written by me (Kate) but presumably by one of the moderators above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs) 4, July 2006
By "created by one of the moderators" are you talking about this edit, with edit comment "Hacked away promotional material with a chainsaw."? -- The Anome 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one, hacked away (!) by Artw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs) 4, July 2006
  • Delete, a former low-level MTV executive (as mentioned here) and current XFM DJ doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. Of all the "Keep" votes listed, only four or five appear to be unique, the rest being made multiple times by the same users, most of whom are apparently personally tied to the subject. This should be straightforward enough. HumbleGod 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Executive" is an interesting word. The article seems to suggest that he virtually ran the place. This blog entry mentions that he held a (nonspecific) "powerful position" at MTV Europe. Can anyone tell me what his job title actually was at MTV? -- The Anome 18:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in up on the news and magazine database Factiva, and his highest title appears to have been Director of Dance Programming for MTV Europe. Bwithh 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, so should we keep this Xfm DJ entry too? Eddy Temple-Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.228.4 (talk • contribs)
Someone has already added an infobox/template asking that very same question. I would assume that page won't last the month. Also, please start signing your comments, all you have to do is add four tildes (~) in a row. HumbleGod 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You add 'em; one of us will follow along and format them for you. Rklawton 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make up a username when signing comments, the edit history gives you away. You can sign up for a username by following the links in the top-right of each page. Proper information on article editing can be found in the Editing Wikipedia section, particularly under "Formatting" and "Sources." HumbleGod 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this page was at this point blanked [35] by User:82.27.228.4, who was given a final warning for doing so. -- The Anome 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked by an admin. HumbleGod 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite focus on stuff that matters, like his music video career. Danny Lilithborne 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His Full CV is here. His MTV executive career seems irrelevant for wikipedia. I'm still unconvinced about his music video career being enough for an article. Bwithh 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bwithh you may miss the point here, he's not just got a music video career but seems to have a career as a DJ, on Xfm as well as producing soundtracks for feature films, the IMDB link and worked at MTV, there's plenty worse entries out there, chill! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.4.138 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - none of which automatically makes him meet WP notability standards, a varied and full life notwithstanding. Yes, there are certainly worse entries out there, and hopefully all of them will make it to this page sometime soon. HumbleGod 23:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Incidentally, it's intriguing that yet another user with no WP edit history prior to today has managed to stumble onto the site and just happens to have more information about this particular subject (if not more citations). Funny how coincidences work out. HumbleGod 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, fails [[WP:BIO], also WP is not a free webhost for the resume. Tychocat 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite I listen to XFM a lot and I'd say that out of the current roster (after the actual celeb DJs) James Hyman is second in notability to Lauren Laverne thanks to his TV and film work. The first version comes over as pretty fanboy/girl (and used too much bold) but as the version currently stands it is reasonable entry - it could still do with some work (there is still information on other TV work that could be extracted for example, as should that info about his CD being one of the top 5 albums of 2004, if it can be confirmed) but he is notable and it'd be a pity if the initial tone of the article distracts from this. (Emperor 10:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The first version was taken directly from his own website, and was posted by User:JamesHyman. You say he is second in notability "after the actual celeb DJs"; this presumably implies that you do not consider him a celebrity? -- The Anome 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - as I say the tone was wrong but it had plenty of useful information that can be wrangled into making a decent entry. On the "actual celeb DJ" front I should probably expand the XFM entry to look at the distinction I was trying to make. What I am getting at is that XFM also have DJs who aren't "proper DJs" but are usually already famous in another arena (usually comedians as they come over well on the radio). These have included Ricky Gervais, Jimmy Carr and Adam and Joe. Do I consider him a celebrity? I'm not even sure the term has much meaning these days if you can become a celebrity for frottage on Big Brother. I suppose with that in mind they he probably is but that all rather misses the point I was trying to make. I'd better go and update the XFM entry while this is fresh on my mind. (Emperor 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete NN, seems to be a real working guy in the entertainment industry, but not everyone who's worked a few films and videos is notable. I have non-notable friends that have edited oscar winning films.--Nick Y. 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

James Hyman is an innovator and educator of the masses. His understanding of music and pop culture is a breath of fresh air. He respects all styles and musical genres. His cult radio show "The Rinse" on XFM showcases groundbreaking new music today. He was responsible for the music sountracks of two British films[Revolver and Kidulthood]for which he won critical acclaim.He is at the forefront of a new generation. --MaitresseMarlene 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

To start, I'm a little bit shocked at the cattiness of the comments above. Secondly, I don't understand where people are coming from by trying to get this entry deleted. Hyman is a fantastic innovator in music. He doesn't play to a 'set list' which is dictated by a huge radio station (read back on your Peel biographies and his early days, please). A Peel of our day if you will, with his own eclectic taste in music. If you think his biography isn't factual, why not ask him for proof rather than pulling punches at him and making sly person remarks, or comments about his 'hot' assistant? Wiki is not meant to be smut.com.

I refer you back to the court case of Wiki vs Encyclopedia Britannica, and specifically:

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles - one from each site on a given topic - side by side but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

So where is your consultation with the experts here? It seems that the 'keep' people above know their stuff when it comes to the facts. I'll take their word for it because I don’t have the time to trawl the internet to back them up. However, regardless of ‘fact’ or not, I fail to see why anyone would want to delete the entry of someone who clearly breaks the mould on a musical front. I don't want to go back to the days when Heart FM or Capital Gold was all that the mass British public would (or could) listen to, and you guys are not helping the case here. We're in a completely different era of music - one that one that embraces originality and creativity. Don't try to stomp it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.227.62 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I know it has rather fallen afoul of the non-promotion angle but I'm sure its not the first time a useful entry has arisen from such activity - the main criteria surely has to be whether the topic is notable enough. I am quite suprised this is an issue (I would have voted for notability on what I knew but reading through the early version of the entry I ran across various other things which I wasn't aware of which would have also counted towards his being notable like headf**k and his directing Fatboy Slim's first video) and things here seem to have got bogged down in claim and counter-claim so I did a bit of digging for information based on the criteria listed in the section on Notability in music: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"

  • "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels":
    • The Remix and The Remix 2 for Virgin/EMI
    • Covered for Sony BMG
    • 7 mix CDs including the James Bond one Licensed to Thrill that was in The Telegraph's top 5 CDs of 2004 [36]
  • "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media":
  • "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"
  • "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - the following still get played on radio stations like KissFM:

Of course this doesn't include work in other fields (TV for example) but the above should be enough to prove notability within the music field using the criteria as it is currently laid out. (Emperor 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep! When searching for info on mr hyman,i find a bunch of people arguing over wether he's notable??????????

this doesnt surprise me as i hadnt heard of him until a few months ago,but this guy is supernova huge.no matter wether you've heard of him he's been the underlying force that was put in charge of curating the rave movement(so to speak).as a twenty something i'm starting to find all the music i love wouldn't be in the mainstream if he'd failed.(think jacque lu cont or The egg from the french car adds)i dont get london radio but i know the statistics & he's heard by nearly200'000 people every week(2-3% of the london!).i think with a fanbase like that you can call him famous.he's all over nightclub flyers/festival line-ups at the moment,so i started researching how he's contributed to alternative music,& can assure you he IS the new john peel.i think he was even the 1st person to ever air gnarls barkley(months before its release).his position in the british underground scene as a dj means he is realy good friends with some of the biggest names in music from before they were famous(just like john peel was).he's pushed many an artist into the limelight by having a massive influence on what other dj's play(just like john peel).And is in the british media on a monthly basis being interviewed or asked for a whats hot list.i think any directorial work he's done doesn't even need to be brought up.just think of how different pop music is nowadays,it's all beats.without him putting so much effort into making beats cool,getting them on air & in adverts, we'd all still be listening to the spice girls & aqua, condemning breakbeat as something only drug using ravers listen to.vinyl2008

  • Keep

Don't think there's any doubt that this should be kept. What seems to be the problem is Wikipedia's definition of notable. Brian's lippy

  • Keep-with-edits

"street-teamery"? Yes, I get that impression a bit. More extensive an article than I would have expected maybe, but worthy of inclusion. It needs reducing to the core points and more backup for the info about his main works. Can anyone with enough knowledge write an objective version of that? jgbreezer

  • Comment: it seems to me that there might well be some "street-teamery" going on in some of the other recent previous comments, as several of the commenters above appear to have only recently discovered Wikipedia, and some of them even appear to have similar writing styles. -- The Anome 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Modest Proposal Let's keep the article in its edited down form but only if all the street team / personal assistant / wife accounts and IP addresses are permanently banned from wikipedia. Bwithh 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An even more modest proposal - Art's chainsawing has fashioned a reasonable starting point from which a decent entry could be created. I'd rather not blanket ban people for being passionate about an entry (even if there is a degree of barging through various "ways things are done" - presumably through ignorance rather than... whatever a more sinister motivation may be). Who knows some may be bitten by the Wikipedia bug and go on to contribute in other areas (and the majority of the others will disappear and never be heard from anyway). Whoever its going to be difficult to fashion the best entry possible if there is too much interference (if well meaning) so how about a gentlemen's (and ladies) agreement from those folks not to interfere or we'll revert the article. It should then be possible to build the entry back up piece by piece focusing on the most notable work (DJing, film work, music videos, TV work, etc. - broken down into sections) with each stage getting a thorough factchecking as we go. Its not the fastest way to build an encyclopedic entry but perhaps being too bold is what has brought us to this point in the first place. Just another idea on ways to move this forward. (Emperor 04:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Changing vote to userfy. Since this article claims to have been written by either the real, or an impostor of, James Hyman, his girlfriend, and their "street team", this is clearly a user homepage. Move to User:JamesHyman. -- The Anome 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. I have replaced the overview of rings in the The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items article. If anyone wants to transwiki this, I'm willing to temporarily undelete to userspace. Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rings (The Legend of Zelda series)[edit]

I note this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Its a short summary and a list of minor items that was never paticularly important; something I could see as more fitting for gamefaqs (which I've looked into, they posess a few faqs on this that do a much more competent job).

From WP:WWIN:

7. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic.

I interpret this as meaning that every single video game article is not necessary for the encyclopdia. We're already filling up with non-notable articles about individual monsters from Lilo and Stich and the like which would be far better covered in aggregate and with far less nitpicking detail. There's also a master article, The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items, and it might also be more plausible to merge it in there. Ethier Delete or Merge. -Randall Brackett 16:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I love the Zelda series, but this is just rank gamecruft. Merge a summary to the master article if it's not already there. At least we can be glad there isn't a correspondingly detailed Rings (Sonic the Hedgehog). Opabinia regalis 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was attempted at a earlier date, but reverted [37]. The reasoning was a classic case of WP:OWN, and according to the editor "...The community had decided to leave the page as it is [38]". -Randall Brackett 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've executed that merge. -Randall Brackett 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything notable and delete. And who exactly is the community that Jelly Soup is referring to? Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the non-table section to The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items. The table isn't really necessary and borders on WP:NOT GameFAQs, but the existence of rings in Zelda games should be mentioned in the master article. Go ahead and transwiki the table if they want it. BryanG(talk) 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia not gamefaqs etcetcetc +Falcon9x5 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Transwiki per BryanG. AMHR285 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If gameinfo wanted this, they would have already taken it. Wikipedia is GFDL. We shouldn't use other wikis as a dumping ground. Proto///type 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable fancruft. I'm considering AfDing List of items in Final Fantasy for the same reasons. --Chris (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information can be found in any game FAQ, walkthrough, or guide book --HarroSIN 09:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. I count four for deletion and two making comments suggesting keeping but not actually endorsing it. Mangojuicetalk 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora-con[edit]

Ad for a non-notable anime convention that hasn't happened yet. The article has no incoming links and is littered with cleanup tags that have inspired no such thing, unless contesting the prod was cleanup. Opabinia regalis 16:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote on the article's discussion page:

This Article should not be deleted. It is a new convention, but those of us the Anchorage area are looking foward to it and updates will come post event. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.41.191 (talk • contribs) .

I nominated an amine article for deletion Kunio Okawara and it got quite a bit of support and even I changed my mind during the discussion. I think this is a new area that many of us don't know about, but it is of interest to many. KarenAnn 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, KarenAnn, the difference between your Ookawara nomination and the Aurora-con nomination is that Ookawara is very notable in Japan, but not as notable here. Aurora-con, however, is in Alaska so it would be easy to prove notability with English sources (A-Kon and Anime North would be examples of anime conventions that are well known.). I also disagree with the categorization under Japan-related articles because it's only peripherally tied to Japan. --ColourBurst 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The convention isn't notable yet and would only be notable by being the first anime convention held in Alaska. However, I think it is generally bad practice to create articles on anime conventions that have never been held before, and in most cases such pre-convention articles end up as ads for those conventions. --69.43.20.194 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC) --TheFarix (Talk) 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The convention is suppose to be held on 14 July 2006. That could mean that a new post-con article would be created just three days after this AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally nn convention and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --IslaySolomon 20:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I think it's great that Alaska is getting their own anime convention, this one hasn't even happened yet. I think it would be better to wait until after the convention has been held, and then write the article. For this reason, I have to "vote" Delete on this one. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't matter whether it happens three days or three years after the AfD concludes, this article doesn't deserve to exist yet and needs to serve as an example for other authors content on being presumptuous about the future.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it is notable after it occurs, then it should be notable before it occurs. We have a lot of things that haven't occured yet, like future elections. No crytal ball refers to making up info that one couldn't know at the present. If it is Alaska's first anime con, that fact doesn't change if it hasn't happened yet. That being said, I don't know what the notability critera are for cons period, it might very well fail them.--Rayc 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. I'm also changing the dab page into a redirect to the other entry. Mangojuicetalk 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyfriend Club (comedy troupe)[edit]

Online-only comedy troupe; only 30 unique Ghits when you take out the popular teen book series of the same name. If this is deleted, the dab page for The Boyfriend Club should be deleted also. NawlinWiki 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most Google links referring to the group point back to this article, which doesn't make the case for notability. HumbleGod 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfunny delete per nom. -- Kicking222 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Keep votes are very weak, sadly, and WP:V is non-negotiable. Proto///type 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristasia[edit]

Aristasia is a fictional world of all females, that is, if notable at all, notable as a BDSM role-playing setting, and is also an anti-feminist group. This article probably should have been deleted almost 2 years ago; See Talk:Aristasia for the VFD debate from September 2004; I count 6 delete vs. 3 cleanup. I did a thorough websearch on Aristasia and found only one thing that looks like a reliable reference: This book apparently discusses Aristasia, but I couldn't determine, online, what it says about it. Otherwise this article cites very unreliable sources: the Aristasia web site and their source text, The Feminine Universe, which is web-published only as far as I can tell, and isn't even complete. The article has two citations that are broken, and the rest are forum postings. There are references to Aristasia in other articles, but they are mainly of a throw-away sort: appearing in a "see also" list, for instance; none have references outside of the Aristasia web site. I had never heard of this topic before I found it via that {{hoax}} tag, and I apologize if my ignorance offends anyone who does know about this topic... but this article really doesn't conform to WP:V or WP:NPOV at all. I'm an eventualist normally, but this article has been around since Sept. 2004; I think it's better if we delete this if it can't be improved now. Mangojuicetalk 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As far as I can tell, this is nothing more than an internet community, consisting of a message board, and some sort of virtual reality chatroom. Based on the tiny number of messages on the message board, this community likely consists of one or two dozen people. The website has an alexa ranking of 1,845,845. On the other hand, there is a video link from some unspecified british tv show from 10 years ago about this, at http://aristasia.co.uk/MM1.htm if anyone wants to place some value on that. --Xyzzyplugh 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, after reading a bit further, this isn't just a web based community, it's run by the woman featured in the video clip I mentioned above, who runs some sort of BDSM club out of her home. So it's a BDSM community taking place inside a house, with a small web based community as well. --Xyzzyplugh 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, reads like something come up with as an "anti-Gor". The pre-21st century refs smell hoaxy. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if it escalates to an obscure 1950s-themed BDSM/fetish lesbian club that gets a little "news of the weird" tv coverage. Bwithh 22:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I believe there is a misunderstanding of Aristasia. I too have done extensive research. Aristasia does not exist. The article need to be rewritten. It is actually a counter-femist concept which arose in pop culture. Urbandictionary and other websites, also acknowledges the existance of this society as a mythical fastasy of male submission. Its ideology is one that formed from modernization and is very real. Some information on that page is false and need to be edited not deleted. However this article has passed deletion once before and should not be targeted again.Killerhun00 06:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a concept contained entirely within a website with an alexa ranking of 1,845,845. What makes this notable? --Xyzzyplugh 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are other websites [39], [40], [41], and others, including an urbandictionary entry. Also if you search in google, this subject returns a large number of results. This is notable in cult cutural. Killerhun00 18:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You again. Why am I not surprised that you would think a GeoCities site and an UrbanDictionary entry would make something notable? Danny Lilithborne 19:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A friend of mine got to actually meet these women who claim to live a "racinated" life. They claim there are several Aristasian households in England and Europe and that they don't allow anything made after 1960 into their house. It turns out there are about four of them, living in two houses, and while they do have a lot of antiques, they also have plenty of contemporary stuff in their houses. They come up with all kinds of excuses for why they make exceptions. Basically, this is their fantasy, not something they actually do. Mrs Baggins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.19.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Curious lesbian subculture. Keep —Ashley Y 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn notable.--John Lake 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many of the Ghits are due to our page being around for years?--Cúchullain t/c 06:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (having problems highlighting with this keyboard) I recognise this may look hoaxy, but I assure you the movement does exist, and has received some significant media attention in Britain, and published not one but several books. If we deleted it because some US readers have never heard of it this makes Wikipedia US-centric. I could give more detailed citations given time. PatGallacher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs) .
No one is disputing that the website exists, or that there are indeed several lesbians living in a house practicing this. If you have evidence pointing to the notability of this topic, if you have reliable sources of information on it, post them here. Merely claiming that they exist doesn't help us. The book, for example, seems to exist only online. If you can point to where it was published in some mainstream way with widespread distribution, please do so. --Xyzzyplugh 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've seen stuff with less notability in the wiki, and even surviving AfD. On that basis, and since there seems to be some crosslinking to it, I don't see why it should be removed. --Svartalf 20:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't think we should take crosslinking into account here. If this article is on a topic Wikipedia can't realistically include, the crosslinking that does exist is likely the result of the Aristasia article being allowed to exist here for so long (as I pointed out above, it probably should have been deleted after its first VfD). Besides, most of the crosslinking is non-useful; inclusion in see also lists and such. Mangojuicetalk 05:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the "delete" arguments seem woefully under-informed. The Feminine Universe has been available in book form for over ten years. Several other Aristasian books have been published over the years. Here is a list of three of them on Amazon [42] including Children of the Void - a full length novel about Aristasians in London which is said to be only slightly fictionalised. The list is not complete. It excldes, for example, The Feminine Regime. Britain's Channel 4 did a full-length documentary on Aristasia that made such an impact that there is a Yahoo group (not run by Aristasians) devoted solely to trvia about this one documentary [43]. There were numerous other television apearances. Articles about Aristasia have appeared this year in the Fortean Times and Bizarre Magazine.

Claims that Aristasians do not live according to their own priciples, aside from being irrelevant, are based on a misunderstanding of what those principles are. Aristasians have repeatedly stated that imitating the past is not their aim. Pre-21st-century existence of Aristasia is well documented and many Aristasians live in private households and are not online. The stress on discipline is much less among current Aristasians, though even the previous generation despised BDSM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.88.14 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment. The books on Amazon are not actually available through Amazon, but rather are only available through affiliated resellers, which really doesn't mean much. I couldn't locate the publisher. When was the article in Fortean Times? Unfortunately, the article doesn't appear in their online archives, but then, not all articles do, apparently. Mangojuicetalk 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe the books may be out of print, like the Gor books. The point is that they do exist and have had influence. The prices that second-hand copies are going for indicates the strength of demand among a "cult" market. These books are mid-90s (for the time-sceptics) and earlier versions of two of them appeared in paperback editons during the late 80s. There have now been three "generations" of Aristasians. Admittedly the first is not very documented as they didn't publish books or give media interviews, but the second generation certainly seems already to have a history behind it. A number of different Aristasian sites have come and gone over the last ten years, with rather different styles, that certainly seem to have been run and habituated by different groups of people. In other words, a core set of ideas and philosophies has motivated a number of people over likely three decades (they claim four) in a variety of ways. Various spin-offs and quasi-Aristasian groups have sprung up over the years, but there has always been an accepted "official" Aristasian group. Aristasia has decidedly (and by choice) been fairly small and exclusive and existed outside the mainstream, but it does seem to be a distinct minor cultural phenomenon.

Re prehistory: in the early to mid 80s a series of stories about a character called Amelia Bingham appeared in the British lesbian magazine Artemis. These stories have decidedly proto-Aristasian characteristics and were written by one of the first-generation Aristasians. The series has recently been privately published as a "novel" and can be seen here [44]. The introduction (apparently written in the late '80s for an abortive attempt at publication in book-form at that time) throws some light on proto-Aristasians at Oxford in the late '70s/early '80s.

Keep I first encountered Aristasia through an interview on the radio and have read several newspaper and magazine articles relating to it. It is counter-cultural, so you would not expect widespread coverage. It is unusual, well-thought-out and highly literate. The Feminine Universe certainly exists in published form. The Wikipedia article does not come across as particularly partisan.

Comment Based on all debate so far, it's highly likely this article will be kept. The problem I have with this is that the article as it currently stands is entirely unsourced. That is, we have no reliable sources on this. Out of print books by the head of this Aristasia movement/whatever, an online book by the same person, and other text on the woman's website, none of these are reliable sources. I tried to find info online on the channel 4 program on Aristasia, and I did find this: http://members.aol.com/bonfessee/cinema.htm While this source may not be the best either, according to it the channel 4 program was not about Aristasian philosophy, but instead about spanking and other BDSM activities. We seem to have enough info to state that this woman is a dominatrix, I suppose. --Xyzzyplugh 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kopelman[edit]

Appears to be a very rich guys resume, which at the end of the day is still just a resume. Artw 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the founder of Half.com and a big technology investor, he strikes me as notable. Also, your series of templates/warnings/etc on this page and the talk page is a bit weird. Opabinia regalis 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was just trying something. They've been removed now. Artw 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable, and the article can be cleaned up. -- Mikeblas 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's just as notable as Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman, or Mark Pincus. -- Wikinewguy 9:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discover, disciminate, distill, and disseminate[edit]

  • citation added. what else do you want me to do? Robert Steele 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essay, not noteworthy, not encyclopedic. Nomination related to Open source intelligence; cf its AfD page --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discover, discriminate, distill, disseminate and Delete ~ trialsanderrors 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was responding to the request for citation in the origin wikipedia entry. Although my work has been central to the development of OSINT I am trying very hard to avoid citing myself. Also the way the US Institute of Peace posted the piece, there is no easy way to link to the specific page, and rather than expecting people to look over the whole page (remember, someone else asked me to provide the citation), I thought that extracting it and then linking was the way to go. This was a way to illiminate and cite with a link to the US Institute of Peace. IMHO, it is both worthy of distinction and part of the emerging encyclopedic knowledge, but I am new to this, trying to fit in with the culture. I expect to learn more in Boston. Recommend retention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Steele (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless sources are provided to prove its notability, veracity, etc. HumbleGod 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research / protologism by Mr. Steele; this phrase has all of two Google hits, and the source that is cited is by Mr. Steele himself. Mr. Steele, we value your contributions, but please do read our policies: WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V. Sandstein 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please! I can understand I may have made a mistake with submitting Open source intelligence to AFD, but really, this article is going too far. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rebecca 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep (no consensus). Might be a merge candidate though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and anti-Semitism[edit]

This article is a mess. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Sources are frequently misquoted. Note there is already an article on Islam and Judaism that covers the interaction of the two faiths and several articles that discuss the treatment of Jews in individual Islamic countries. Delete. Javadane 17:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I'd like to add that Bernard lewis says( page 85, Jews of Islam): "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctorine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history. " --Aminz 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can probably never be NPOV. --Pboyd04 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Any relevant sections should be incorporated into Islam and Judaism (but not wholesale merged). Calwatch 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably 25% of this article can be rescued and merged into Islam and Judaism. I need to mention that "violates NPOV" is not a criteria for deletion, however. - Merzbow 20:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hang on, the issue of Islamic anti-semitism is certainly encyclopaedic, and I do not see why the page cannot be NPOV. The section on Dhimmi, for example, is perfectly NPOV (it could do with some sources, but lack of sources is not a reason to delete). The Islam and Judaism article does not talk about what this article is about at all. I casn see no reason to delete - if people do not like what is on the page, go and edit it. That is not the business of AfD. Batmanand | Talk 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Islamic antisemitism is recognized and studied phenomenon. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islam and Judaism. Only parts up to Wiki standards of course Bwithh 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islam and Judaism does not adequately cover this content at the present time. Doing so is better than having separate articles, and that is the better title, so Merge. GRBerry 03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk)(Contrib) 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and if any rescuing of text for other articles then only any items that are impeccably referenced. Itsmejudith 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to something that is focused on the Muslim practice rather than the Islam itself or Merge with Islam and Judaism. See my comment above. --Aminz 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support the Merge with Bwithh's reasoning. Either way, the title is inherently NPOV. --ColourBurst 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, though there should be discussion as to whether another name could be produced that would both remove any perceived POV and retain the basic meaning. TewfikTalk 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly an encyclopedic topic. While POV must be fixed, it cannot serve as a reason for deletion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Humus Sapiens. Chodorkovskiy (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

(UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - non-notable bio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Papazisis[edit]

Not notable, and admitted autobiography. DarkAudit 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatnium[edit]

Five hits on Google, all from Wikipedia content. The article doesn't try to set a definition itself, saying the word is "vague", so it isn't elligible for transwiki. Mikeblas 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedily deleted by Rogerd as CSD G1. DarthVader 04:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fifer[edit]

Apparently an article about a high school teacher written by students. After someone posted a db-bio tag, material was added claiming he was an Iraq war reporter, a claim which google does not substantiate. Looks to me like he's just a teacher. Fan-1967 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: nn-bio, hoax. — getcrunk what?! 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (I tagged it speedy as an nn bio [45] and the author removed that) it is a an nn bio ,hoax made up in school about the teacher.--John Lake 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above comments ... discospinster talk 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's be frank, this is an issue about the Iraq War. Please give Fifer or whoever this is his due respect. I doubt it's fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoemaukertuvvick (talk • contribs) 17:04, July 4, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was boldly redirected. Proto///type 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Warfare[edit]

NN garage band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Can we lose the images, too? Alr 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with images. Nothing I found could prove satisfaction of WP:MUSIC. Yanksox 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just discovered that this is in fact a vandalized redirect, and so will revert. Alr 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page was redirected, AfD has now reached moot point. Yanksox 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That was my doing. Alr 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Haney[edit]

A US local weather presenter. Was tagged for A7 speedy, but there's a hint of notability in the article so I switched it to PROD. Author removed prod without comment - and the tags asking for a {{wikify}} and a {{catNeeded}}. No extra sources or assertions of notability were supplied, so article now comes here as a matter of course.➨ ЯEDVERS 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hard-pressed to see any notability here. Poorly written, awful spelling, and a hint of POV ("best meteorologist"?) HumbleGod 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:59Z
  • Speedy Delete - I saw no hint of notability - no awards, nothing. Also note that the Original editor has posted the entire news crew for this station. The rest of the crew were speedy deleted. Rklawton 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a whole category devoted to weather presenters on Wikipedia [46]. Cursory examination reveals that many of the articles under it are no more notable than this guy. Many articles start out in pretty bad shape and go on to be great articles so I don't think that the bad spelling and writing should be an issue - we can fix that. Its a bit of a concern that the author has been removing the maintainance tags, but they appear to be a newbie - maybe they don't really understand how it works yet? We should probably cut them some slack Mammal4 14:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helmi Noman[edit]

It looks like a vanity page and there's nothing else notable besides receiving a Fulbright prize Janarius 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Has been to university" + "Is conducting study" = Non-notable --IslaySolomon 19:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, but userfy if appropriate. Mr Stephen 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CDI Computer Dealers Inc[edit]

Article reads strongly as advertising. Was prodded, and author removed prod and links, but still shouts out self promotion, so submitting to AfD. Possible copyvio on some of the text from http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/productnews/prodnews.cfm?sid=397 ~ Matticus78 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as a staff member at CDI Computers, my only intention was to bring the company to the light of other users. You are welcome to remove any links, and you are welcome to reword, and edit the page. I was just trying to make a corporate page, just like hmmm IBM, HP, Dell etc, since CDI isn't listed already. I should point out, http://www.cdicomputers.com/overview.asp Please feel free to email me with suggestions on the page. Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanVS (talk • contribs)
That's fair enough, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and articles must be written in an impartial, neutral manner. IBM, HP, Dell et al have all been written about by third parties in reliable news sources, so there is both neutrality and verifiability to draw upon. If you can rewrite the article in a way that is neutral, and provide links to third-party sources writing about the company, then you have a stronger case for the article being kept. Please read the guidelines in WP:CORP for what Wikipedia considers to be a business or company notable and worthy of an article. ~ Matticus78 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as I said, please feel free to help me. This is my first article, and I'd appreciate help on getting it up to snuff. AllanVS 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I consider myself a fair person, so I've quickly reworked the article to a more neutral tone to give you an idea what is required of a Wikipedia article (to put on my Joe Friday hat for a moment: "Just the facts, ma'am."). There are still problems with it, as marked by the tags showing that the information needs to be confirmed, but see what you think. However, the article still needs to go through the AfD process to decide whether it still meets other criteria on notability and so on. ~ Matticus78 19:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I'm going to do updates, I've got some more information. The Corporate Structure, is found on the phone extension lists - as of now, this is all I can find. I'll see if I can get my manager (Gal) to put up the structure on the "History" page. I hope he will. If not, I'm going to work on 3rd party resources with the Rotman library in Toronto Canada to back track all info on incorporation etc etc.

Matticus - thank you for your time, effort, and being the only person with a bit of kindness. I hope to have as much info as possibly posted by Thursday or Friday. AllanVS 21:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mikeblas - that's the "helpful" spirit ain't it? Just delete the bloody thing, without trying to fix it. Way to welcome people to the Wiki community. Bloody hell. AllanVS 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to fly off the handle. As I explained above, the article as it stands does not meet various criteria for a valid Wikipedia article, so it needs to be drawn to the attention of patrollers and admins, not to mention yourself and other Wiki editors. A lot of people try to create articles that advertise themselves, their businesses and so on, mostly just for the publicity, and many of these articles get deleted within minutes. I saw that you were a business of a reasonable size, so didn't just stamp you with a speedy delete tag. You still have several days in the AfD process to rework the article to a more acceptable standard. All it needs is a couple of links to reputable business journals, newspapers, etc. that have written articles about CDI Computer Dealers, and to remove all the "biggest, best, we believe this, we're changing that" kind of language from the article. Give us some figures, some facts, some more verifiable information, and your article stays. I've scoured Google myself, but couldn't locate any relevant information besides links to your websites and press releases and suchlike (press releases are not valid third-party sources, BTW). ~ Matticus78 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP. "I was just trying to make a corporate page, just like ... IBM, HP, Dell etc". Well this isn't IBM or HP. --IslaySolomon 19:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as stated already, fails WP:CORP and notability standards. HumbleGod 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP. No Google results of CDI Computers in anything apart from directories and classifieds. Unless your company has some major press coverage (e.g. Forbes), then pleae don't expect Wikipedia to allow you to continue advertising here. Your attempt at link-spamming [47] earlier doesn't do much for your credibility either. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wheat syndrome[edit]

Original research, Google search shows 18 results, all but one are Wikipedia derived.Ckessler 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - interesting idea, but a neologism nonetheless, and not a widespread one at that. HumbleGod 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. No evidence that this term is in common use. --Metropolitan90 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. By the way, I'm not convinced this particular flavour of the phenomenon is a cliché, and I'm not convinced that the examples cited are faithful to the article's definition. Looking at Shakespeare's oeuvre, could we say that the ghost of Hamlet's father or King Macbeth suffered from 'Sam Wheat syndrome?' --die Baumfabrik 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists[edit]

The article is unencyclopedic and has no precedent, involves original research and is poorly sourced. See talk page.--Eupator 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any of that information can be backed-up by a credible source. -- Clevelander 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they could, placing people in such a list is simply original research, who should be there or excluded is simply the judgement of the creator of this article. Fad (ix) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree, going around fishing murderers from a particular ethnic group, all more unrelated one from the other, like the example of the 16 years old kid is unencyclopedic. First, many of those murders have nothing to do with nationalists, example, Behbud Han Jevanshir killing was an act of vengence. Also, giving such a precendent, any person can decide that any ethnic groups murderers can be classified and an encyclopedic article could be formed out of it. To have such a classification, such an encyclopedic position should exist in the first place. I do not go around and post the list of the thousands of Turkish nationalists who murdered Armenians during World War I to then form an article out of it. It is unencyclopedic. Fad (ix) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can probably never meet WP:V --Pboyd04 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Fad's comment. The list will be perpetually incomplete and is rather judgmental about who is included. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should we now create an article for every two ethnic groups that have been assassinating one another?--MarshallBagramyan 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hakob 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - random list pulled together for an agenda. John Smith's 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it is becoming disturbing. Should we also delete the list I was preparing in parallel? Armenian notables deported from the Ottoman capital in 1915. Or is that one considered as kosher? Cretanforever
    • Vote modified to Keep but Reshape as per below Cretanforever
    • That too would be unlikely to survive AFD. It cites no references, so it I assume it is your original research - WP:NOR. Notables is a vague term, making the list potentially indiscriminate - WP:NOT. As said, unreferenced - WP:V. But I might be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, that other article is just like this one, pov ridden original research.--Eupator 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Totally unencyclopedic. Besides the valid reasons raised above, this is forking, which is prohibited by NPOV rules. I could create a list of Turkish criminals and post it as an article, if these kinds of articles were to be allowed. Definite no-no for Wikipedia--TigranTheGreat 06:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unencyclopedic and not pro-Armenian --Gokhan 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to present my apologies to Gökhan (and to him only) for having drafted such unencyclopedic content. How could I forget (even for a moment) that the angelic Armenian mind and such ghastly acts like politically-motivated assassination could never be associated. I am sorry Gökhan! It was such bizarre points as, some of these murderous political organizations still being active in one way or the other, sometimes under the same name (we can partition the article according to the different organizations, by the way!), some of the assassins having monuments erected to their memory (such as in California, of all places!), an entire industry functioning around propaganda, for what was it again, oh yes! for "vengence", these people killing priests, mayors, diplomats, without mentioning simple folk, for "vengence", the list of victims reads like the United Nations, for "vengence", and during all that time, their country sinking more and more into the mud, no one investing there, except to keep the hate machine alive. And since a hungry chicken will think itself to be in a corn barn, as we say in Turkish, history is built and re-built again to suit present needs. Krikor Zohrab's books become best-sellers in Turkey, and there are Armenians who don't know who Elisha Tourian is (from what I could see from a peek in a chat-site). For a moment I had the impression that it seemed familiar and that there was a sickly pattern, which prompted me to start the draft. I thought a list would do good. I am sorry again! Cretanforever

  • Comment The list you made is inconsistent and incoherent and many of the assassinations range from the 1890s to the latter half of the 20th century. What purpose would that serve to a reader on Wikipedia? to show that Armenians have had a history of assassinating and killing diplomats? What does the Khojaly Massacre have to do with "Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists"? Again, to establish the jurisprudence that Armenians have always had a knack for indiscriminately killing including that of civilians? I might as well create a "Turkish assassins" article that picks up on every single assassination of a foreign diplomat, citizen, innocent, civilian up to and including to the deeds of the Grey Wolves and Ali Agca.--MarshallBagramyan 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead! Do it! Assassinations committed by the Grey Wolves! (or Turkish nationalists) Some of which already have distinct articles here to which links can be established (Bahçelievler Massacre). Include those on foreign diplomats or other foreign nationals or in localities abroad. Including notable ones that have been attempted. You can put a "See also" link to mass-killings of civilians which have occurred in enclaves (or exclaves, regardless:) where they were known to be influent. Ranging from the 1890's. Including non-definite cases for which notable references have been made to them. (like Ahmet Özkan case in Chveneburi article where, despite that article's wording, their implication could not be fully established...although it is reasonably likely) I certainly won't put your list on deletion, but let you develop it. I like lists. Cretanforever
Here's some start-up material. It's in Turkish of course, but I can translate it for you and give more feedback. It seems that a core group of Grey Wolves who lived in Europe as exiles during the military rule in the 80's seriously planned to invade Costa Rica (which does not have an army) and establish a Turkish state there. [48] Cretanforever
Being cynical or sarcastic isen't an argument at all. No one is telling you to not creat pages about certain individuals. Here the question revolve around the article which you have created. Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists say it all, it is a list of names, and there is no way that from such a subject there could be an encyclopedic article. I don't appreciate your tone, words like 'angelic Armenian mind' evidence(and I hope not) an ulterior motive in creating such an article, which would justify its existance.
Furthermore, what is the relevancy of the monuments erected? The justifications you came up such as industry functioning around propaganda only further convince the community to request its deletion. Fad (ix) 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point is that making such articles is pure folly. I wouldn't make such an article even if I wanted to because its unencylopedic to Wiki's standards not to mention spurous. --MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Davo88 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is such a concept as ethnic terrorism - there is no question about the veracity of the data, although it is incomplete, many more names can be added. In case of so-called assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists it can be re-phrased as assassinations (inlc. attempted) by Armenian Secret Army of Liberation of Armenia (ASALA, on US State Dept list of terrorist organizations), or Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutsyun party), or Hnchak party, or otherwise "Armenian terrorism". If there can be Islamic terrorists, Irish, Basque or Kurdish terrorists ("nationalists"), Iranian or Syrian state sponsorship of terrorism -- i.e., all pointing to a specific nation or ethnicity -- why can't there be Armenian terrorism or "Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists"? The latter is actually a less harsh wording. The page should undoubtedly be improved, perhaps rephrase its title -- but removing it completely? It obviously shows a certain pattern, and that pattern has been identified as such by several sources. Also, I've raised a similar question here [49] - there is a page about a certain Lt. Ramil Safarov of Azerbaijani army. Whilst more famous than perhaps any other Azerbaijani Army Lt., at the same time there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Azerbaijani and Armenian (as well as other) junior officers in any given army who kill, or get killed, committ atrocities or are victims of such. Thus, I raise the question, why should Ramil Safarov have a page in Wikipeda -- he is just one of the victims, who has killed himself and saw killings all around himself coming from a refugee family -- and not Armenian Army Lt-Colonel, much more senior in rank, Pargev Abrahamyan, who also used an axe, but to kill his wife, not enemy combatant? Everyday rapes and murders and other grave crimes occur in both Armenia and Azerbaijan - whilst unfortunate, still, why should they be written about in an encyclopedia? --AdilBaguirov 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would help, if you read WP:NOT, which is a policy. I don't think I need to tell you what part is concerned. Fad (ix) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I stated above, it would be fairly easy to put separate headings for ASALA, Dashnak and Hunchak actions within the article to make it look more like List of ETA attacks and Chronology of Provisional IRA actions, and I also agree that its main flaw is (and perhaps will always be) incompleteness. I object the WP:NOR relevance here though: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. All info here has been collected from previously published sources, to which I put direct links. There is no analysis or synthesis, it's a list of events. A killed (or attempted to kill) B at this place and at this date and in this manner. Discussions on phrasing and on deleting an article are distinct exercises. Cretanforever
You may create a list of ASALA attacks, I see no problem there.--Eupator 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Fad (ix) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they are worth copying in style, tone and nomenclature. However, it may be better to have an article for each of the ASALA/anything else you want to add. Chronology of PIRA actions does not include OIRA, RIRA or INLA ones, nor should it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that Angus. I changed my vote in that understanding. ASALA acts are already on the article for that organization. They just need to be wikified a bit. Therefore, I will draft something like Acts of assassination by Dashnakists etc. And Elisha Tourian and Moscow Metro Bombing, among others, certainly deserve articles on their own. Cretanforever
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and inherently POV. --InShaneee 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gateway Drug[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC with no releases. Nothing at allmusic.com, can't buy 'em at amazon.com. Searching for "The Gateway Drug" gets lots of hits--for marijuana pages. Filtering to include names of each of the members gets a single hit -- this page -- in most cases. Mikeblas 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -They're "set to record their second album" and "re-release" their first "as a mixtap". One of them has a show on college radio. Typical nn-band. --IslaySolomon 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the lone contribution by its author; couldn't find anything of note on Google or elswhere. HumbleGod 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. --Golbez 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Resistance[edit]

This article, like the one on Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists, is unencyclopedic, has no precedent, and lacks credible sources. -- Clevelander 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about (A) an historical event (B) the occurrences of the events are real and the timeline is correct, (D) the people who involve are real people. There are extensive citations, which include: Henry Morgenthau, he devoted a chapter "The Revolution at Van" in his book Ambassador Morgenthau's Story. The official record of provisional government can be found on the website [50]. Article uses direct quotes from Richard G Hovannisian who is a very famous Armenian historian. The article does not contain any ethnic hatred and discrimination. The historical concepts are covered with a neutral point of view; the sentences are neutral and not biased. Battle of Van would be left without a resistance force as without this article there would not be any one against the Ottoman Army in this fight. Please check the picture in the article, which the article tells the story of the people in the picture. Thanks for your concerns and efforts. --OttomanReference 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I'm reluctant to recommend deletion without knowing more about the period, and there seems to be information of some value in the article. But it needs citations and heavy copy-editing if it's to be kept. HumbleGod 19:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For now, I will not take position and wait for the evolution of this RfD. I disagree that this cases is like Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists, the other article can not be encyclopedic ever, because it is not an encyclopedic subject. This on the other hand, severly tainted and misrepresetation of the footnotes, does have some potentional(the subject I mean). I don't know what the community decides in such cases, delete it, work on an OK article, and creat an encyclopedic one? Or keeping the tags about the accuracy etc., untill the article is made encyclopedic. So, I could not tell. The name of the article should probably be changed for 'Van resistance' and having 'Van rebellion' redirected on it. It is either called Van resistance or Van rebellion in published materials, neither revolution or Van Uprising, while sometimes it is called by the second name, but to retrace an element of what happened there rather than the incident. Fad (ix) 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take this all back. I acted way too hastily and I think the best resolution to this article would be to discuss its problems on its talk page. I apologize to all who have contributed to this article. -- Clevelander 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushmen Entertainment[edit]

NN company, no Google hits, fails WP:CORP. Delete --Huon 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence they're even a company at all. Seems like a vanity article for amateur film makers. --IslaySolomon 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. However, I will likely tag this as a copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 00:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Andre[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:BAND with no releases. The guy has won a few awards, but they're from his own website. All the "MOB" awards are from "MixingOnBeat.com", which he runs himself. Mikeblas 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Advert/CV for non-notable DJ. Bizarrely he's added "Career FAQs", but not in the form of questions... --IslaySolomon 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like much of this text is copyvio from [51]. -- Mikeblas 14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I don't see the problem with his site. It's a work in progress. Go learn about the guy. He has been a great DJ and Mentor for many other Jocks. -- Chris_t , 7 July 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Keep. This is a perfectly good article containing verifiable information such as the list of writers who have been retained (the BBC-sanctioned publication, Doctor Who Magazine, confirmed this and filming starts in a few weeks), the identity of the new regular companion, and so on. Other claims in the article are easily sourced to the BBC (eg William Shakespeare). The lack of references should be repaired by normal editing--the information is all out there, put out by the BBC, for the most part, on its own website. --Tony Sidaway 12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who New Series 3[edit]

Full of unreferenced, unverifiable claims. We don't need a separate article on a future series of a television program when each episode will eventually have it's own article. All information on individual series is already sufficiently held in List of Doctor Who serials. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — FireFox 19:23, 04 July '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 of the debate was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was subsequently redirected to Smeg (vulgarism), which seems appropriate enough. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smegging[edit]

Article about nn nothing David Humphreys 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete WP:CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Gwernol 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny moore[edit]

First few paras are about his father ... last para shows it as a nn bio David Humphreys 19:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, latching on to someone's fame is not a way to satisfy WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Yanksox 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. This article is a carbon copy of the Thurston_Moore article with only the last sentence acknowledging that it is actually about an insignificant relative of his. --IslaySolomon 19:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% accurate— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.235.193 (talk • contribs)

An article that was speedily deleted does not qualify as a speedy deletion under repost. That's for something that went within Wiki's deletion policy, like an AfD. Yanksox 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Yanksox 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1980s wrestling boom[edit]

Appears to be original research/essay, is repeated off of other articles, or could be spilt into them. Burgwerworldz 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Professional wrestling or move to history of professional wrestling. Either way, expand greatly. The history of the pro wrestling doesn't seem to be covered at the moment in any comprehensive way, at least not in an obvious namespace. Ace of Sevens 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was created as part of an ongoing project by the WikiProject Professional wrestling, which will also see an article relating to the 1990s wrestling boom created. The article needs expansion, but an article focusing on a period of growth confined to a single decade and a single country is too obscure to be merged with the main professional wrestling article. McPhail 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user created the article, so that vote should be discounted or "cheapened". Burgwerworldz 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I created it in reponse to a request made by the other members of the WikiProject. Wikipedia:Deletion policy does not endorse your view that my vote should be discounted. McPhail 00:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable and verifiable enough for mine. General comment: Articles for deletion is not a strict vote. Rather the closing admin should look at the strength of the cases put in terms of policy and claims of notability, verifiability and guidelines. As such, the arguments of the articles creator are valuable and shouldn't be discounted. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this article for consideration --Burgwerworldz 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't buy the claim of original research - the article has two references already, and at a quick glance, I don't see anything that couldn't be documented from other sources. Dsreyn 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons McPhail stated. It's part of an ongoing project and is still being expanded. TJ Spyke 02:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasredirect to Free. JYolkowski // talk 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FREE[edit]

It says right in the article it's a neologism. This term was only ever used in reference to the Shenmue series, so it should be deleted and re-directed to Shenmue Free and add link to Shenmue on this disambiguation page. Ace of Sevens 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, author requests —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 08:14Z

Myallsearch[edit]

nn website, no relevant Google hits. de-prodded. — getcrunk what?! 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Totally nn, 3 google hits [52], none relevant. --IslaySolomon 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (CallieSulake) Not sure why you think this should be deleted. This is my first article on Wikipedia I dont see what wrong with it. and youv'e just said NoNoNo. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by CallieSulake (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I don't see anything wrong with this article. it is a website. The description is informative and not advertising at all. Perhaps IslyaSolomon has baised views about this? debbie King Debbie@quizmania.tv --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbieking (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Not sure what bias there would be, and besides, just because the article is informative doesn't mean it deserves existence on WP. HumbleGod 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (CallieSulake) I should point out to the wikipedians that want my first article removed: Look at the article. The website started in "JUNE". The website could be in the process of being indexed by Google/yahoo/ask etc... You can not disagree. Thank you and good day :) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by CallieSulake (talk • contribs)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, CallieSulakie if you don't understand why we're saying this should be deleted please ready WP:WEB it is Wikipedia's policy on inclusion of websites. --Pboyd04 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wait until it is popular and then write an article about it (unless you are associated with the website somehow, then let someone else write an article about it to avoid violating WP:VANITY). Recury 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tychocat 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn, WP:WEB. HumbleGod 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, author admits that the website is not notable yet. Try again if it does become notable. NawlinWiki 02:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agrees With NawlinWiki (CallieSulake) Fair enough, Im glad you were nice, unlike some wikipedians which still live with their mothers *cough* "IslaySolomon". You may delete this NawlinWiki. I will try again when the website is listed and more notable.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CallieSulake (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment The author's requested this article's deletion, so I've tagged it per CSD-G7 - author requests deletion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAJ[edit]

Reason this is GAJ (2) is because there was a page at GAJ that was deleted previously.

Last AfD was only stopped beause nom was polite and removed notice. I think he should have stuck to the courage of his convictions. This page is about a self-published book, which means it is probably not notable per WP:BK. I accept, though, that is could be notable if it provoked important social phenomena and reviews etc. But let us consider the three reviews we have as links: one is a university paper, another is a local Ottawa paper and the other is a yoga magazine. Hardly important national or interantional coverage. Overall, non-noatbel, free advertising for someone's self-published book that has had no real impact. Batmanand | Talk 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mena conspiracy[edit]

non-notable conspiracy theory Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well, not very interesting conspiracy theory. - XX55XX 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article doesn't even explain what the alleged "drug and murder scandal" is and the links provided are to conspiracy nut ramblings. --IslaySolomon 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Wrestling Federations[edit]

small fantasy wrestling fed Burgwerworldz 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:55Z
  • Delete -- but Burgwerworldz, the article already has a prod tag on it that has never been removed. The point of a prod is to avoid the need for an AFD discussion if nobody objects to the prod. NawlinWiki 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Yanksox 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Warfare[edit]

nn software, reads as ad Burgwerworldz 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The series in particular Extreme Warfare Revenge is quite popular within the Internet Wrestling Community and is considered by some the Championship Manager of professional wrestling. --Oakster (Talk) 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; according to Ryland, several wrestlers have played and commented on the software. McPhail 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Software has been featured in mainstream gaming magazines and websites. Software is considered the leader of its branch. The creator of the software is a respected independent programmer, one of the most recognizable ones. It's my opinion that this article was listed for deletion in bad faith. Metrowrapper 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination I have given. I don't think it's notable at all, but if you want WP to be a cesspool, so be it. --Burgwerworldz 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow Board[edit]

This is a non-notable website. I had previously used WP:PROD but the author deleted that, so I'm using AfD in accordance with policy. Hawaiian717 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see anything notable. GregorB 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing more to be said. HumbleGod 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was no consensus. Counted MLA's vote as a delete vote, since withdrawal was withdrawn. Mangojuicetalk 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Saturday (1984)[edit]

Seems to be an inside term of wrestling fans. Also look for AfD on Black Friday, a game show "term". Only netted 134 hits on google with search of ("black saturday" 1984 wrestling). Burgwerworldz 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event itself is extremely notable within its context, even if the article name itself is not widely used. McPhail 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then keep it within the articles of the organizations and the television shows this effects, having a total cruft term has no place here. Burgwerworldz 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The events of the article transcend three different corporations; recounting the event in three different articles would appear to be redundant. The term "Black Saturday" has been acknowledged by wrestling executives such as Ole Anderson. In addition, it has been described by journalists as "a pivotal point in the history of professional wrestling". It is not "cruft". McPhail 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Ghits show some significance in a stand-alone sense; it's conceivable people would look up the term expecting this particular manifestation of it. "Weak" because I hate how subgenres like wrestling, Star Trek, etc have an article for every little nuance, but that's just personal opinion. HumbleGod 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly a significant part of wrestling history, particularly in the 1980s. Maybe under a different name or with redirects relating to the incident. Normy132 01:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant Delete I'd dispute the notability of this but the nominator has withdrawn so is a Speedy Keep MLA 09:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this article for consideration --Burgwerworldz 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Irrelevant Strong delete and merge I don't think this deserves a stand alone article. Perhaps I might suggest that the creators consider staring a history section in the Professional wrestling article?--Nick Y. 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good to me. Except rather than have a section on the PW article what about the history has its own article? Normy132 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that sounds reasonable. It might be best for the author of this article (or someone else who cares to improve this area) advocate this move and explicitly accept deletion (with a quick recue of savable material by copying it into an appropriately named article such as "History of professional wrestling".--Nick Y. 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP gotta keep it. I wanted info on a reference and I found exactly what I was looking for. User: puremournin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.2.31 (talk • contribs)

  • Really, really weak delete - the circumstances make up a significant series of events in the history of modern professional wrestling, but the name is complete bullocks. Tough call. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm starting up a discussion about a proposed "history of professional wrestling" article which can be found here. Feel free to join in. Normy132 07:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as xlink-only —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:08Z

Atik[edit]

Utterly non-notable blog. Self-promotion/vanity. GregorB 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:06Z

Spidermaning[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I personally think this one is a very obvious deletion candidate but I couldn't find a speedy criterion that it would fit into. -- JoanneB 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Um...erm...hoax. Per nom. -- Banes 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could probably have been speedied as {{db-nonsense}} --IslaySolomon 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, hoax, WP:BJ, etc. HumbleGod 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a neologism which I believe was created by comedian Jerry Tuttle of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In the context of the original routine, it was quite funny, though it loses something in the translation. That doesn't exactly require a page. Ace of Sevens 23:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't it be "spidermanning"? In any case, delete stupid sex game. Danny Lilithborne 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of ataturk[edit]

organisation which may or maynot exist. Unfortunately non-verifiable. As far as I can see 0 relevant Google hits. Travelbird 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somebody proves its existence and importance.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone can claim any sort of importance of this group. Note that the editor who created it has the same name as one of the founders of the organization. Not a proof of anything but another indication that this is vanity. Pascal.Tesson 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:01Z
  • Delete until evidence of notability or even existece is given.--Andeh 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Crutchfield[edit]

Submitted on behalf of Sandy who was not sure of the procedure. The concern is a possible lack of notability (the guy is only a city councillor) and none of the many statements are directly sourced despite several requests to the author. OTOH he does seem to have some colourful episodes and has risen above health problems. I am neutral on this. TerriersFan 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks, TerriersFan. This article came to my attention several months ago via a wikilink to Tourette syndrome. I have been prompting the unsigned author of this article to reference it with primary sources and establish notability since April 28 (see Talk:Tim Crutchfield). It is not clear to me that notability is established for this local politician, the article has not been referenced, and I've had to constantly edit out unsourced, inappropriate references to his personal life (e.g.; ex-wife and marital issues). Sandy 22:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO --IslaySolomon 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy vanity article, Batman. Weird, minor details from life of small town councilman. JChap 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, author's only article, not notable in the least. HumbleGod 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Pascal.Tesson 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the references aren't releveant, BTW. -- Mikeblas 23:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's not quite true. I think "limited relevance" would be a more fair description. But some have questionnable independence (such as the autobiography) and the others have limited credibility being local papers. Pascal.Tesson 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He may have overcome a lot, but in the end a city councilman is just not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. --DarkAudit 00:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, vanity.--John Lake 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. If he were a liberal, then it wouldn't be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.82.241.170 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete take your pick: now I've been called a liberal :-) Checking the contribs of anon, Marshall Keeble is a new article, not sure it's notable. Maybe I'm a racist liberal now. Sandy 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made numerous monetary donations to this site. Since you want to yank the article I wrote in honor of this man, I am seriously considering ceasing any further donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.12.233 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 July 2006
Comment if you expect that donating to Wikipedia gives you any sort of control over its content then stop donating. Pascal.Tesson 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete city council members, liberal, conservative, communist or martian, aren't notable enough for an encyclopedia. Okay, maybe martians...but not regular old humans. -- Scientizzle 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go figure. Somebody does something good for a town, like help to get the sex offender's list started there and this is the thanks he gets. I guess we see whose side Wikipedia is on. Ianpage 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contribs of above signed editor show a potential AfD non-notable, David Parnell, originally created by User talk:Tlmcrutch. User 64.82.216.246, are you Tim Crutch? Sandy 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned editor above retroactively changed signature. [53] Sandy 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am a constituent, however, and a fellow employee where he has his contract. This computer has public access as a sample demo to sell our internet services. It can be used by anyone. I know the man personally, and even I think he should be given credit for what he has done.Ianpage 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned editor above retroactively changed signature. [54] Sandy 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can put up a website or blog about him. Notability must be established per WP:BIO for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sandy 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't give him the credit he deserves. Wikipedia has more access. It irritates me to no end the criticism this man has gone through, but he never seems to get credit for what he has done for us. His notability has been more than established, especially here in Dexter, Missouri. Ianpage 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Ianpage registered today, and Crutchfield is his only contribution. Sandy 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a violation of GFDL - User:Zoe|(talk) 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hom-dai[edit]

The poorly written article is about a curse featured in a Mummy film. Besides notability, the problem is that the author has copyrighted the text (see the end of the article) and do not allow changes. I have had bad experiences with this editor in case of Ahm Shere article - she really do not like changes in her texts. Ioannes Pragensis 22:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Stewart[edit]

If we're claiming that notability includes school district boards of directors, then we're really stretching the bounds of notability. Also, it's an autobiography. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not really notable, and I hate it when WP:AUTO applies. HumbleGod 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Islay Solomon lives in Edinburgh, Scotland and is becoming increasingly bored with non-notable people writing about themselves in the third person and putting the results on Wikipedia" --IslaySolomon 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear-cut case of vanity. Should have just been proded. Pascal.Tesson 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to Lou Stewart. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:54Z
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Merge -- I'm involved in editing the article. Since Wikipedia includes everything from info about every single ever released to various local politicians, why is this article not valid? I will include links to where I got my info for the page. However, since there seems to be broad majority forming against the article, it should be merged into Lou Stewart, her father and a very prominent labor leader. --Tjss(Talk) 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete School Board? Mayor's office? Very, very few local offices hold any shot at notability. These are not they. --DarkAudit 00:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. - Bobet 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Grosso[edit]

This guy is not known outside of Italy. This is why it should only be in Italian Wikipedia. Delete- As above. Kingjeff 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article clearly indicates that as a player for a top-level soccer team he should qualify under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is a world famous footballer who plays for his country's international team. His actions have just secured Italy a place in the world cup finals[55]. I believe this nomination is an act of willful vandalism. --IslaySolomon 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Grosso scored the game winner in today's game. Yanksox 22:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, user who nominated this for AfD has been vandalizing this page all day; this article clearly doesn't merit deletion. HumbleGod 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Obvious bad-faith nomination. For those not in the know, Grosso is a member of the Italian national football team and just scored the goal which put Germany out of the World Cup, and is easily as notable as many thousands of other professional footballers who have articles on Wikipedia. Nominator has been blocked for 24 hours for repeated violation of 3RR. -- Arwel (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. As much as I never want to think about Grosso again, he obviously needs to be kept. --68.50.23.9 22:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Wonder Woman[edit]

This page is empty, save for speculation about the possible title's premiere and creative team. Chris Griswold 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sounds like it might be a copyvio anyway. JYolkowski // talk 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of billionaire divorces[edit]

listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Markeer 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if anything maybe have a category like "Billionaire divorcees" or related. List is unnecessary and would probably bore even a tabloid journalist. HumbleGod 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Ramseystreet 10:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Perhaps its tabloid material, but the source is Forbes magazine. Forbes loves their lists, and so do I. The problem with a category is that it can only handle people with biographies, and not those awaiting biographies. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:50Z

Advanced Global Connections[edit]

Wow. This thing reads as blatant advertising if I ever saw it. The person associated with it may have some level of notability however. Kevin_b_er 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie[edit]

The article describes a one-off character from The Simpsons. I can't imagine that anyone searching for her would look for simply "Abbie" rather than "Abbie Simpson," (or whatever her last name is) so I don't think a merge/redirect is really appropriate. The material is already in the relevant Simpson episode article. Joyous! | Talk 23:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mangojuicetalk 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House lucius[edit]

One of the more creative hoaxes. A "non-profit vampire organization". Probably too creative for CSD Travelbird


  • check discussions page too*
Comment Which discussion page ? Travelbird 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one, the discussion page for this AfD. Fan-1967 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page has been edited. It no longer claims the members are vampires. It's not clear if they're role-playing as vampires or they just believe in vampires or what. Still makes no assertion of notability, so my vote is unchanged. Ace of Sevens 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't really care if these guys believe in vampires or just like to suck a little blood or pretend on the internet or what, I see nothing that makes them any different from any other bunch of vampire-obsessed people on the internet. I was kinda hoping that we might get to see the obligatory death threats from Master Darkchylde von Hemoglobin, but with 49 posts on their forums and 11 registered members, I guess they just don't have the manpower to reach that level of outrage, even if all of us foolish mortals refuse to accept the superiority of the children of the night... Bummer. -- Captain Disdain 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Comment: Since when an article on wiki is meant for deletion due to personal subjective views?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaOne (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 July 2006
  • Comment The number of registered users/posts in your forum is not a personal subjective view and pretty much disqualifies you from notability. Ace of Sevens 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The forum is not the subject of that page. Over 700 people have stopped by, although not registered on the forum and over 11000 hits, as seen in the statistics. Does that not count, when trying to figure out the notability of something? And please don't refer to 'House Lucius' as "mine". I am not here as an official representant of 'House Lucius', therefore I urge you to refrain from such comments. (Sorry if it's a little harsh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaOne (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 July 2006
  • Well, first of all, we delete things all the time because of personal subjective views, or rather, a consensus of personal subjective views. On Wikipedia, consensus tends to be king. However, to make things a little easier, we do have various policies and guidelines to direct those views. One of those guidelines is called Wikipedia:Notability (web). House Lucius does not meet those guidelines -- it doesn't even come anywhere close to meeting them. Secondly, no offense intended, but I think you may need to get a little perspective here, because "over 700 people have stopped by" and "over 11 000 hits" since August, 2005 is, uh, pretty much nothing. (And incidentally, I have to say that it strikes me as more than a little dishonest that the site uses the phrase to describe itself on the forums. Having 700 people visit the site in one year (that's, what, less than two visitors a day...?) is not at all the same thing as having 700 members.) This is not an attack against the site, it's just that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and House Lucius is a very small website. Very small websites are very rarely suitable topics for encyclopedia articles. Oh, and when participating in discussions like this, please sign your comments, by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. -- Captain Disdain 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, didn't knew how to do that. Yes, I agree that the site notability might be a little low, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't inexistent. And I beg to disagree, if 'House Lucius' is not interested in forums there is nothing anyone can do about it. What I'm trying to say that not ones forum denotes overall activity of something, so you should not judge it by the activity on the forum. And about the personal views thingy, like: " don't really care if these guys believe in vampires or just like to suck a little blood or pretend on the internet or what, I see nothing that makes them any different from any other bunch of vampire-obsessed people on the internet." So deleting their article of wiki, because of this? I can tell the policy and guideline regarding this view. DeltaOne 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I'm not judging it (only) by the activity on the forum, although I have to say that any site with a forum as devoid of life as that one is going to have a damn hard time convincing me that people actually, y'know, use it. But that's not the only criterion I'm using here; the user counter on the front page of the House Lucius clearly indicates that only a few people use it. But if that doesn't work for you, how about an Alexa ranking? At the time of this writing, that'd be 873,557. That's nothing to write home about. And yes, as I said, I don't really care if these guys believe in vampires etc. That's a personal opinion, absolutely, but that's not why I think the article should be deleted. You see, the people who frequent the site might believe in Santa Claus or be avid kite fliers or obsessively enjoy a rousing polka -- I don't care and it doesn't matter, because the site does not stand out. It's not notable. It's not encyclopedic material. If you want to believe that I just look down on the poor vampire enthusiasts and unfairly want to delete the article because of that, I can't stop you from doing so, but the bottom line is that the site doesn't even remotely meet WP:WEB. This is not persecution, and it's nothing personal. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to let everyone create an article about whatever they like. Very few sites merit Wikipedia articles, and articles about much larger and much more popular sites than House Lucius get rejected all the time. -- Captain Disdain 13:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to look like a bugger. I see what you mean, and thanks for the Alexa link, didn't knew the existance of such site. If the real purpose of Wikipedia is, as you say, not to let everyone create an article about whatever they like, as few merit to be featured on Wikipedia as it's an encyclopedia of very important things, then I fear that I have made a bad choice submitting it in the first place. Thanks for sharing your views, my respect for wikipedia has fallen tremendously.(sp?) DeltaOne
  • Well, have it your way. For me, that's the kind of a thing that increases my respect for Wikipedia, because if we weren't discriminate about what kind of topics we have articles on, we could have articles on, say, your cat (if you have one) or your lack of cats (if you don't happen to have any). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is true, that doesn't mean an article should be written about it. -- Captain Disdain 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, until an administrator checks this article, I will try to sum the reasons why it was meant for deletion.
    1. Hoax (I yet haven't received any info regarding this)
    2. Not-Notable-Forum (at that time there was a link to the forum, link removed. Also, there has been a discussion about the fact that, as few people are on their forum, their website is not notable, thing that I completely disagree with)
    3. Not-Notable-Organization (poor wording in the article, it has been edited to better reflect the issue)
    4. Not-Notable-Website. This one was controversial to one point, when Captain Disdain explained that from an Alexa Ranking, it's not notable, and I have been also explained that wikipedia, as a respected online encyclopedia shall not have articles on things that are not very notable. I also, respectfully, disagree with this.


Feel free to comment here rather than sub-commenting the above topic if there are any other reasons for deletion.DeltaOne

I suggest you read the articles at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Five pillars and think about how they relate to your article here. You can argue your case here, but honestly, I think you're wasting your time. This is not some kind of a weird legal process or a bureaucracy where you can find a loophole or interpret the rules in your favor. The bottom line is, it's exceedingly unlikely that this article will remain on Wikipedia -- unless, of course, you can turn it into a properly sourced and verifiable article that also establishes why this website, out of, what, millions of other websites, is significant and notable enough to deserve an article, even though it's not widely used, it only gets a few relevant Google hits ("House Lucius" gets about 270 Google hits, but only a few of them are actually about the site). I mean, what do you want me to say? It's not a popular site. I don't mean any offense here, but allow me to be frank: it's not widely used. It's not widely discussed. It's not widely linked to. Seriously, my blog -- which is not the subject of a Wikipedia article and definitely shouldn't be one, either -- has a considerably larger Internet presence than House Lucius. So I don't think you can get an article out of this one, but if you could, I'm sure we'd all willing to change our votes in this matter. That happens in AfD processes all the time. Personally, though, I think you'd be better off learning from this experience. I don't mean to be a dick here, but c'mon, face the facts. The fact that your site is not widely recognized doesn't mean it's a bad site (any more than my blog is a bad blog). This is not about quality or a judgement call about your site's content. It's a simple matter of us having certain guidelines and your site not meeting them. -- Captain Disdain 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mangojuicetalk 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triacontakaiheptagonal number[edit]

Originally prod'd, with the reason being given as "Wikipedia is not infinite. This article is not encyclopaedic. The only "interesting property" mentioned is having an awkward name. The related article triacontakaiheptagon was deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Enneacontakaienneagon." I concurred with a {{prod2}}, and I concur now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Figurate number. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:44Z
  • Delete. I looked more closely at the article and I don't see anything interesting about it, as Arthur Rubin said (why not a 36-gonal number or 43-gonal number?). —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 07:20Z
  • Delete unless there's anything special about such numbers. — Pt (T) 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are the values of a non-integral quadratic. Nothing special about them either visible or likely. Septentrionalis 13:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 01:17Z

Jinsoo Terry[edit]

As with the article on Advanced Global Connections, of which she is the head, appears to be more of a self-promo. Author of this page has only created/edited three articles, all of which tie back to Jinsoo Terry. HumbleGod 23:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment also, since the article on Advanced Global Connections was speedy deleted, this might qualify for the same, since it has the exact same problems as that article. HumbleGod 23:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had deleted Advanced Global Connections as copyvio. It turns out this article is also a copyvio [57]. These deletions are for copyright violations, though I suspect the articles might otherwise be deleted for non-notability anyway. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 01:16Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Obvious redirect. Editors should read the Deletion policy before they consider nominating an article for deletion. The presence of a redirect here is harmless and, if the creator of the page returns to edit it, he will be redirected to the more compendious article. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case of English pronouns[edit]

English pronouns are already covered in depth at Pronouns and related pages. Strad 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poncholand.net[edit]

It gets 2 hits on Google, and the only content on the site seems to be some kid doing tricks on his bike. Looks like vanity, and I see no reason that anyone would even consider it remotely notable. tmopkisn tlka 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eversites[edit]

NN, also looks like original research. Google hits for "eversites": 78. The article contains a quote from the BBB which I cannot locate on bbb.org. In fact, the phrase "eversites claims" (which is taken directly from the quotation) does not seem to appear on any web pages, save for this article. A URL search for eversites.com at the BBB site does yield some useful information - that there are "7 pending complaint [sic]" against eversites, and 1 resolved complaint with regard to sales practices, but it doesn't list the outcome. It looks to me like someone got scammed and decided to make a wikipedia article about it. Either way, 78 Google hits is ridiculous. Delete. Moe Aboulkheir 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The quote is from http://www.ky-in.bbb.org/alerts/20060412.pdf, which I've added to the article. (It was the first Google hit after the company's own website.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 00:58Z
    • Hmm, I was wrong about not being able to find "eversites claims" - google hides the result because the (long) quote in the WP article appears in both. I only see it if I click the "show omitted results" link, which includes matches that share long sequences of text with higher-ranked pages. Though the BBB PDF doesn't show up in any of the results for a vanilla "eversites" query, it appears on the first page, in the 8th position, if i include omitted results. Of course, my vote still stands. Moe Aboulkheir 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I got carried away with correcting the implication that the BBB quote was made-up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-06 08:02Z
  • Strong Delete Absolutely just an advert and absolutely NN company DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Delete Whatever it is, it's highly non-notable, as the nom pointed out in detail. -- Kicking222 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sucks for whoever got burned by them, but doesn't make it notable. WP:CORP? HumbleGod 04:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_4&oldid=1081095963"