Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 4 July 6 >

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 nomination was USERFY to User:Jfraatz/Wikicladogram Project — Gareth Hughes 00:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicladogram Project[edit]

non-notable wiki savidan(talk) (e@) 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; userfication seems like a better option while the author is trying to figure this out. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Aranae 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pwer nom. -- Koffieyahoo 02:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary, pointless article --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone help the author with this.. Copy it to the author's namespace so s/he can work on it and eventually copy it to the Wikipedia: namespace if it's improved.—Pengo 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is this a Wikipedia project? It seems like a separate Wiki because in the instructions it says to the equivalent Wikipedia page. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:53, 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 redirected to Air Scotland, I see nothing to merge. Obviously when the name change takes place the article should be moved. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topjetair[edit]

Unsourced speculation about a possible renaming of a small regional airline. Was tagged for speedy delete but no recognised criterion given; switched to prod but tag removed by author without comment.➨ ЯEDVERS 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been amended so that it is not unsourced. Original tag removed accidentally when amendments were made - sorry! Zzx27, June 2006


  • Since the tag was removed during a portion of this AfD...
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:43, 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 deleted as a copyvio. -- SCZenz 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-2[edit]

Biogrpahy of non-notable band savidan(talk) (e@) 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band is a famous rock russian band, if you don't believe me go to the official website..... i love this band and i want them to be on wikipedia.... where is the problem, its not an unknown band...... they are very famous in russia (G-man edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbardon (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I'd never heard of them before, but google seems to indicate that they're worthy of an entry. They had what appeared to be 3 of the top 10 entries in a google search for Bi-2 (interestingly, the three were grouped in the top 5), which returned over 1,000,000 results. They also performed at Moscow Live 8, which was attended by 20,000 people. [1]. I think the article definitely needs to be cleaned up and sourced more, but I do think they're notable.Vickser 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Speedy Delete I can't believe I didn't see the copyvio. If someone wants to rewrite, I do believe they're notable, but copyright violations have no place on wikipedia. Good catch, Joelmills. Vickser 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio from [2]. Pretty obvious, just click on the link under "source" in the article. --Joelmills 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Tagged with {{db-copyvio}}. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:04, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Vodka[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable brand of Vodka. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio from http://www.idolvodka.com/about.html; blanked. RidG Talk/Contributions 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious advertisement. --Riley 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Easy peasey: CV. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the copyvio aspect isn't a concern as the author claims permission of the company to use the copied text (see talk page). I've removed the copyvio notice. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even without the copyvio, this doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP notability. I will reconsider my vote if/when verifiable and reliable sources establish sufficient notability. Additionally, this article is very POV and needs to be cleaned up. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kacerek[edit]

Non-notable band member savidan(talk) (e@) 23:20, 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 Delete. --JoanneB 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compuquest[edit]

Basically an advertisement for a non-notable corporation. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinley, Kevin M.[edit]

My initial reaction was that this qualified for Speedy as a vanity page per A7. I note that the creator of the article is User:Kquinley, whose only contribution is this article. However, on re-reading the article, there may be some argument that this person satisfies WP:BIO. There may be sufficient ghits for this person as well (assuming it's the same person). Out of an abundance of caution, I think it's best to put this one forward for consideration by all. Agent 86 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Notable in the world of accountancy, perhaps, but outside it? Is WP:PROF an appropriate criterion to use? If so, more references to his published work will be needed. Tevildo 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment' If he meets WP:PROF as an accountant, then he ought to be deemed notable. While most respected accountancy journals have online versions, they are also fee for access so far as I know. (I'm in Finance currently, but not a CPA.) We might need a CPA to test the claims unless the article grows references. WP:BIO would also be a legitimate test. GRBerry 01:46, 22 June 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, W.marsh 00:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although not the most notable, the ghits seem to assert some degree of notability. We can't just delete it because it isn't Wikified. --Alphachimp talk 07:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Using ProQuest, I find several articles written by him in Business Insurance and some in Safety Management and Veterinary Economics, not much. Afd maybe should be relisted again. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should of course be renamed to "Kevin M. Quinley". —Centrx→talk • 18:32, 4 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Somewhat distinguished career, but don't see anything encyclopedically notable. "500 papers" claim unsourced, if those are peer-reviewed, I might reconsider. ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The ones I find appear to be mostly book reviews and random articles. —Centrx→talk • 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and speedy rename to put the last name last, needs sources Crazynas t 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the 500 papers referenced JPotter 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jason Potter, note that merely writing stuff will not make you notable, but if the books have ISBNs and are properly sourced, maybe keep. SM247My Talk 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references can be fixed per {{sofixit}} and {{solookitup}}. --DavidHOzAu 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My initial was delete. The subject matter is dry, but would be to anyone outside the industry. An author of 10 books (confirmed on [Amazon (link might not work, I think they use a token in the URL). I might even work with the guy to clean it up - kind of bored right now. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 08:35, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham County Line[edit]

AfD submitted by Dubc0724. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete come back with sources of notability Crazynas t 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Good reviews on Allmusic, so I think they may meet WP:MUSIC, but the article is woefully short. The subject meets the standards, but the article as written fails A7. --DarkAudit 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability made (I won't invoke speedy because there seems to be a lot to be found about them, but unless something notable is inserted, the article should go). SM247My Talk 22:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (meaning Keep if someone's willing to adopt the article). Rings a very faint bell, but Yep Roc is a pretty big name in indieworld. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable, given the information at All Music Guide. Spacepotato 00:06, 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 per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anguilla bangalensis bangalensis[edit]

Created in error - spelling mistake should have been Anguilla bengalensis bengalensis HappyVR 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need for AFD. When you create an article in error, just put {{db-author}} at the top of the page and it will be speedily deleted. Fan-1967 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or move it to the right place. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 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 all articles listed below at time of closing. San Dimas High School Football Rules cannot be deleted under this AfD, as the tag on its article was removed very early on during this discussion and not replaced, but there is no consensus on that song here anyway, so it's a moot point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Streak (song)[edit]

Song off an early, independent, nn album that didn't chart, nor did any of its singles. Burgwerworldz 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of an album by The Ataris entitled, Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits. This album was released by an independent label several years before the band achieved mainstream popularity. Each song on the album now has its own article, even though this album did not reach any billboard chart, and none of the singles reached any sort of chart as well. This band is not influential to have merit to have each song from a non-charting indie album have their own articles. Also look at music examples in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents Here are the additional songs and articles that I also propose for deletion:

--Burgwerworldz 00:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, except for San Dimas High School Football Rules Is the band notable? Absolutely. But this album is not especially notable, and every song on the album certainly isn't. I would argue keeping "SDHSFR" as it is the first single by a very well-known band, and thus could merit inclusion in WP on its own. That song's article needs clean up, but I think it's sufficiently significant. -- Kicking222 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep San Dimas High School Football Rules, Delete all, as they don't really merit encyclopedia articles. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Cordesat and Kicking 222 per both AdamBiswanger1 03:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "SDHSFR," delete the rest per above. Delete all under consideration. Pretty good album, but not every song deserves a page. After some thought, I also recommend a merge of "SDHSFR" into the main band page per Scientizzle's reasons, although personally I think a redirect is valid given the song's notability in the genre. HumbleGod 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep San Dimas High School Football Rules and delete the rest (or merge if applicable) as per Kicking222 and everyone else. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To make things easier, I have decided to remove San Dimas High School Football Rules from consideration for deletion. --Burgwerworldz 14:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge the songs now under consideration. I would actually be inclined to suggest merging SDHSFR somewhere as well; there doesn't seem to be very much to say about it other than that it was their first single, which means it might be better covered as part of some wider context, which would be more useful to those who are trying to find out about the history of the band. But consensus seems to disagree on that point. — Haeleth Talk 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the band delete the rest Crazynas t 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all, SDHSFR would barely be a footnote on the band's main page, no need to give it an article...not even a redirect. -- Scientizzle 22:34, 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 debate was Delete, with lots of thanks, however, to William Pietri for his kind and patient explanations to the author :) --JoanneB 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Mobile[edit]

Questionable notability of company ... also advert DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

  • Keep Forgive me for my lack of understanding as I'm new. But since yesterday when I registered I've been trying to expand the pages of locales. Mainly Los Gatos, Since I'm from that area. I didnt know what Rocket Mobile was and decided to add an explanation to the company after I did some research. Now I cannot defend its notability, but for anyone else venturing to find out what the company basically does then I find the page helpful. Mike24 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Mike. You shouldn't take this personally. We get a lot of corporate spam, so people can be a little brusque about these things. Articles about companies should generally meet the WP:CORP standard. This one doesn't seem to. If you think it could, you have a few days to improve the article. If not, don't sweat it. On Wikipedia, the best way is to learn by doing, and I'm glad that you're being WP:BOLD. William Pietri 04:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, thank you for the explanation. I'm not going to try and improve the page at this time, I still am trying to learn all the rules for the site so I feel it best not to try and patch anything up without knowing exactly what I'm doing. Thanks for the explanation, it makes it a bit less confusing. --Mike24 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. If you want, as the author you can request speedy deletion, which would make this process moot. Also, I should mention that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that we don't really have firm rules; it's more about a joint effort to figure out the best way to make an encyclopedia. Still, people have already done a lot of figuring already, and you bumped into a bit of that today. Don't let that discourage you! If you end up with more questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. William Pietri 05:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Thanks for your help. I was mighty confused when I came back only a minute after making the page seeing it was up for deletion. If I have any questions I'll be sure to ask! --Mike24 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow. That was quite literally one minute from first save to AfD. Nominiator, you should consider rereading the section on before nominating an AfD. In my opinion, AfD is mainly for contested deletions. This should have been preceeded by enough research to be sure the the article was a hopeless case, some discussion with the author, and a proposed deletion. I hope you fit a lot of research in 60 seconds, but you left the rest out. The author's contribution history makes clear he's a well-meaning new editor, and we should strive to not bite the newcomers. William Pietri 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom WP:CORP -- Librarianofages 01:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Qualcomm. Green caterpillar 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Qualcomm. Delete. Not notable on its own. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article improves to meet WP:CORP. They make software for a Qualcomm platform but are otherwise unrelated, so a merge is inappropriate. William Pietri 04:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Just because it's a company does not give it automatic entry into Wikipedia ... unless it complies with WP:CORP -- Alias Flood 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:CORP Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's just like an advertisement. *~Daniel~* 06:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:CORP Crazynas t 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but if not modified and added to within the next month or so, delete. Kitia 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CORP Treebark 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all like-minded above. SM247My Talk 22:56, 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. Sango123 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pants under skirt[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism, perhaps a case of WP:NFT, so delete. Note that I have added PROD, Cfred has endorsed it, and 142.177.155.159 has removed it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 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 Move to It's Goin' Down (X-Ecutioners song) Computerjoe's talk 19:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Goin' Down (Linkin Park song)[edit]

Useless article, needs redirect/merge to Linkin Park - Zos 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All of their other singles have pages and this one charted in Top Ten DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
    • Comment: I'd like it kept sure, but maybe there either needs to be an article specifically for Linkin Parks albums, or merge it somewhere else. Zos 01:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 01:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move It's certainly, in my eyes, a notable song. It was a hit single, and easily the most well-known song by the X-Ecutioners (in fact, there's no competition). However, the article should be moved to a different title, as it is an X-Ecutioners single, off an X-Ecutioners album, that simply featured 40% of Linkin Park (not to mention Wayne Static). The first sentence should state that it's a song by this DJ crew that features some Linkin Park members, not ""It's Goin' Down" is the single by Mike Shinoda and Joseph Hahn from the Nu metal band Linkin Park, and the scratching artists The X-Ecutioners from their 2002 debut album Built From Scratch." The single chronology should also be removed. -- Kicking222 01:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/move, sure. Why is this in AFD? You can do the move or content editing yourself. Kuru talk 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Kicking222. Album cover in article even notes it's an X-ecutioners track. HumbleGod 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Kicking222, but note that simply It's Going Down (song) wouldn't work due to the existence of a song with the same name by Yung Joc. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move -- Alias Flood 16:31, 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. Sango123 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H! Vltg3 / Pts.Of.Athrty[edit]

Album, useless on its own, redirect/merge to Linkin Park - Zos 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please explain nomination, it is not enough to merely say that an article is "useless" deletion is a serious matter and must be justified, you have not done this. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. -- Librarianofages 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why this anti Linkin Park purge on the AfD pages? However awful they may be, they are a notable band and this is a well known song. I'd agree that some sort of merge might be in order but that doesn't necessitate nomination for deletion. --IslaySolomon 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable single by notable band. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again, you can handle this sort of proposal by opening a discussion on the article's talk page, or using a proposed merge template. There does not seem to be a reason to put this in AFD. Kuru talk 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can be resolved on the article's talk page not by AfD -- Alias Flood 16:42, 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. Sango123 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne DuBose[edit]

Despite all of the text, there is really nothing here except that he's the pastor of a church whose former pastor was related to a President. That doesn't make him notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable pastor. He was pastor of the LARGEST Southern Baptist Church in LOUISIANA for fifteen years. We have many teachers, lawyers, and professors on Wikipedia who certainly have records no more impressing that Reverend DuBose. There are only about 15 Baptist ministers on the site. Are we setting a "higher requirement" for ministers than teachers, lawyers, and professors? I removed the "awards" from high school, as that line did seem to trivialize his accomplishments.

Here is a sample of a lawyer on Wikipedia, and I just pulled this name from random:

Steven Dennis Bell (born 11 February 1953 in Akron, Ohio) is a lawyer and mediator.

[edit] Biography Bell's parents are Samuel H. Bell and Joyce (Shaw) Bell. He graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1975 and from the University of Akron School of Law in 1979. He was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979. He served as an Assistant Director of Law for the City of Akron (1980 - 1983) and as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio (1984 - 1988). He also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Ohio (1992). In 2002 he became the managing partner of The Simon Law Firm, LLP in Cleveland, Ohio.

How does this lawyer qualify for inclusion but not the pastor of the largest Baptist church in Louisiana? -- Billy Hathorn

Hi, Billy. Thanks for coming by. I see you're a relatively new editor; you might want to look at WP:SIG and check out some of the other recent AfD discussions for the format we use here, plus Help:Editing for formatting tips. You're right that Steven D. Bell appears not to meet the criteria under WP:BIO, and I have proposed its deletion. I don't think there's any systemic bias here, but it's an interesting question. How do you feel Wayne DuBose meets WP:BIO? William Pietri 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks notability. -- Alias Flood 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable per WP:BIO. In the event that this article is kept, it needs some serious neutral POV cleanup, as well. -- Docether 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another lawyer who is listed: Albert Bates From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Albert Bates (born 1947-01-01) is an influential figure in the intentional community and ecovillage movements. A lawyer, author and teacher, he has been director of the Institute for Appropriate Technology since 1984 and of the Ecovillage Training Center at The Farm in Summertown, Tennessee since 1994.

Bates has been a resident of The Farm since 1972. A former attorney, he argued environmental and civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and drafted a number of legislative Acts during a 26-year legal career. The holder of a number of design patents, Bates invented the concentrating photovoltaic arrays and solar-powered automobile displayed at the 1982 World's Fair. He served on the steering committee of Plenty International for 18 years, focussing on relief and development work with indigenous peoples, human rights and the environment.

Bates has played a major role in the ecovillage movement as one of the start-up members of the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), and GEN's president of the Ecovillage Network of the Americas (from 1996 to 2004). In 1994 he founded the Ecovillage Training Center, a "whole systems immersion experience of ecovillage living."[1] He has taught courses in sustainable design, natural building, permaculture and technologies of the future to students from more than 50 nations.


So what does this article on another lawyer have to offer that the article on Pastor DuBose lacks? What cleanup does the DuBose article require? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 July 2006 UTC.

Hello again, Billy. I'm disappointed that you appear to have missed my previous reply. If you think another Wikipedia article doesn't meet our standards, you should follow one of the approaches for deletion. If you believe this article should be kept, you should help us see how it meets WP:BIO, or explain how you plan to make it meet WP:BIO. Note that this isn't any sort of judgement about Wayne DuBose; I'm sure he's a fine fellow. Here we just decide if an article meets the appropriate standards. If you think the standard should be changed, I'd start with the appropriate talk page. William Pietri 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - see WP:INN, a salient essay about the above references to lawyers . SM247My Talk 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, the argument "you should keep my article because there are others just as bad" is not a valid argument. Discuss the merits of the article in question, please. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't meet any of the standards established in WP:BIO. We need more articles about clergy, but there are plenty of ones with better sourcing and greater significance available to write about. Look at the various founders and officers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions for examples of people we do need articles on - we don't even have the names of the founders, and it is probably the first American organization dedicated to sending foreign missions. It definitely antedates all American Baptist associations, as the first of those was formed to support Adoniram Judson who left the country as a ABCFM missionary and converted to being a Baptist enroute, causing him to lose his missionary support. If you want to work on Baptists, follow the links from Judson out one or two people until you find stubs. Build up Heather Mercer or Dayna Curry, both of which need work and are notable under the renown/notoriety standard. GRBerry 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been missed that Pastor DuBose was the pastor of the largest Southern Baptist congregation in LOUISIANA for a period of some 15 years. That alone should make him worthy of coverage. The church had over 6,000 members while he was the pastor there. -- Billy Hathorn

Hi, Billy. No, I did notice that, and should have mentioned that. There are two issues I have. First, we'd need to be able to verify that from a reliable source. Second, I'm not sure that's really enough: it doesn't obviously meet WP:BIO. Per WP:IAR, that's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'm having trouble extracting some principle that we could insert into WP:BIO to make it better. Running the largest X of type Y in place Z doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Have his accomplishments been noted elsewhere? For example, Rick Warren was recognized in Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report. William Pietri 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of information can go at Wikinfo, I believe, where they have different inclusion criteria. Notable pastors I know or have known and who have articles include Eric James, Robert Runcie, Richard Harries, Baron Harries of Pentregarth. How does this pastor measure up against those? Just curious. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Summer Grove Baptist Church, Shreveport, LA, to confirm that Pastor DuBose was there and that the church had its largest membership then -- largest in the state in fact. I am awaiting a reply. Billy Hathorn 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Billy HathornBilly Hathorn 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Billy. I'm glad to see you've gotten the signature thing sorted out. Have you read the policies and guidelines that I mentioned above on verifiability, what qualifies as a WP:reliable source and why we shouldn't do original research? Thanks, William Pietri 00:20, 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. Sango123 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to Linkin Park[edit]

Another album, redirect/merge to Linkin Park - Zos 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "tribute" album of which no contributor is notable wiki-wise. -- Librarianofages 01:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few tribute albums are notable, and this is no exception. -- Kicking222 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, gotta delete this one. It's a tribute album made up of non-notable performers. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this. -- Alias Flood 16:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, notability is not conferred by association. SM247My Talk 23:01, 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. The arguments against merge are convincing - to summarise them, there's no evidence that this 'chaos theory of literature' exists in any context, so it can't be connected with Hayles. If Hayles had actively associated herself with a "chaos theory of literature", then the article would be a merge candidate, but she didn't - one of her books is merely said to have "laid the groundwork for study". --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Theory of Literature[edit]

Looks like pomo nonsense. Nothing on Google/Books/Scholar. The article is vague about the books it actually mentions--there's a big difference between using an idea as a metaphor to aid in explaining another field, and devising an all-out theory of the field. This is along the same lines as broadly applying Einstein's Theory of Relativity to morality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 01:27

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BullsBalls[edit]

Blatant advertising, page author deleted prod.--NMChico24 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please note that there's already a generic article for Truck balls.
  • Weak delete Decent number of Google hits (about 19K), but a not-so-good Alexa rank of 668,106. Funny idea, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Truck balls if this is indeed the generic term DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Redirect to Truck balls if feasible, otherwise delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bulls Balls is a trademarked term, and from my Google rummaging doesn't appear to be the generic phrase. William Pietri 03:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Truck balls. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a trademark of bullsballs.com per William Pietri. Cannot find any mention that this is used outside talk about this companies products --Peripitus (Talk) 08:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Truck balls. (And a quote from the latter article: "They are colored all the way through so that, should they scrape upon an object, such as a curb or a speed bump, they remain the same color." In real life, they'd probably turn red and give the owner incredible pain.) --Elkman 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Advertising.
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing really to merge, though the things that amuse pickup truck people continue to astound me. Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is not encyclopaedia material. -- Alias Flood 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and buy ad space instead. SM247My Talk 23:03, 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 debate was already speedily deleted by Pilotguy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The callen sisters[edit]

Definately WP:BIO, possibly WP:AUTO, maybe WP:VAIN and absolutely WP:NN only 8-10 ghits and half of those are MySpace DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

  • Speedy delete -- as a musical group with no assertion of notability. (Album to be released in the fall of 2006 is not an assertion of notability.) NawlinWiki 01:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note As far as I can tell, this was never given an AFD tag, but does have a speedy tag (not by me). NawlinWiki 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 2 I did put a tag on it, but there was an edit conflict, thought I'd sorted it ... Whoops !!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel V. Roggenbuck[edit]

former FBI agent, legal attache at a US embassy; no other notability claimed, doesn't seem like enough to me. NawlinWiki 01:50, 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. Sango123 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekspedisi Madewa[edit]

as a WP:NN Indonesian movie DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Bones and U.S. Education[edit]

Like Skull and Bones historical connections (afd1 afd2), this article consists primarily of original research and largely unsourced speculations on the involvement of Skull and Bones in a vast global conspiracy to control American education. The primary author is AWOL, and nobody seems to have taken on the (massive) task of sourcing the article's statements. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:07, 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. Sango123 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ausflightsim.net[edit]

Non-notable website. -- Barrylb 02:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Is notability based on the number of hits a website receives? This site is no less notable than Avsim.com or Flightsim.com. In fact the content of this article explains the purpose of the website better than the aforementioned. The work that this site claims to be doing for the flight simulation community is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehmann (talk • contribs)
Comment, interestingly one of the two articles you cite was tagged for notability and I have just tagged the second. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carney[edit]

Notability in question. Main points made by article are that the subject is an uncredited extra in films and performs in unspecified theatre. The claim of an upcoming NBC talkshow is dubious, as the article cited is about Keira Knightly. There is nothing on that page regarding Richard Carney --NMChico24 02:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree: notability isn't even slightly in question. Delete with all due speed. --Calton | Talk 02:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm removing this comment until GeorgeMoney can confirm whether or not he's the author. I doubt it since the edit is due to an anon. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me why this guy is signing my name? I have nothing to do with this article. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of the sources used in this article support any of the claims therein, and the subject is not listed at IMDb. --Metropolitan90 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re GeorgeMoney ... he didn't add the post and User:216.231.162.9 is currently vandalising pages DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing on IMDB, nothing on Google. Classic NN. HumbleGod 04:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4, already deleted once before under CSD A7 and this article is essentially the same. "At his career's height, he was often found playing extra-like roles" This article still doesn't establish notability in my view. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified likely hoax.--Isotope23 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax. No IMDb listing. I'm not a Casting Director, so I can't access the SAG database, but I have strong doubts that I'd find it there, either. --DarkAudit 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking hoaxier since his picture was also used on Larry Fish. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly hoax Computerjoe's talk 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment suspected GNAA operative. Link (since removed) on the Fish article is a GNAA link. --DarkAudit 21:59, 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. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PuzzleCrunch[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an Encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 02:20, 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. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhyAbe.com[edit]

Advertisement. Cheese Sandwich 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and probably WP:ADS ... will someone check ABCOffice for this also (please) DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
    • Xavor also deserves a look. On the same topic, I would bet that the marketing director of every company out there would cut-n-paste their PR newswire description into a Wikipedia article... I wonder if there's an automated way to detect these. --Cheese Sandwich 02:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've proded Xavor, feel free to support... Pascal.Tesson 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Author just vandalized the page... I've reverted the vandalism, however FYI re this. --Cheese Sandwich 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete blatant spam. The other edit by the creator of the page is the spam-addition of an external link. This should have been proded. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam spam spam... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure canned luncheon meat --IslaySolomon 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam and see WP:WEB - articles should be written about the history, achievements or culture of the site, not what it offers to customers. SM247My Talk 23:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is above and beyond the call of SPAM. Dear God, what the Blistering Blue Fuck does provide free procurement tools and promote collaboration between buyers and suppliers in a global marketplace mean? --die Baumfabrik 05:53, 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 all. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyza[edit]

Not verifiable as notable. Google gives about 2600 hits for kyza +"terra firma". [5] AllMusic says that "terra firma" is a metal band from Stockholm. [britishhiphop.co.uk] is offered as a reference for Terra Firma, but that site's own site-specific search gives only six hits -- none of them very robust.

Klashnekoff comes cloest to any verifiable noteriety: 1060 hits for Klashnekoff +"terra firma" on Google. And an empty listing (no bio, no disography, no worked with) on allmusic. Mikeblas 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes:

Kyza
Klashnekoff
Terra Firma

I don't think verifiable notability should be excepted for "underground" musicians, even when they work together as a "collective" or a "record label" that produces "mixtapes".

(PS: This is my first try at a multiple AfD, so please check my work. Preash!) -- Mikeblas 02:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "...they have yet to release anything under the group's name", "...a forthcoming album...", "...the underground smash...". Fails WP:MUSIC. --IslaySolomon 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, crystal-balling for non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per scrying argument. SM247My Talk 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Klashnekoff is one of the top UK hip-hop artists currently around and more than meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. He has two albums out on notable independent UK hip-hop labels (check Amazon), performs frequently on Itch FM (London's leading hip-hop radio station) and others, and recently was one of the headliners at BBC Radio 1Xtra's UK Takeover event in Nottingham, appearing with Kyza and the rest of Terra Firma. I wouldn't argue that the latter two entries should necessarily be retained, but Klashnekoff has to stay. PS: 87,500 Google hits for Klashnekoff (spelt thusly); listed by the BBC 1Xtra website as one of the UK's most influential artists.Efortune 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Here's the BBC 1Xtra page, which is neither in-depth nor a ringing endorsement. -- Mikeblas 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Multiple performances and interviews on 1Xtra and Radio 1 should be enough for WP:MUSIC. If you know UK hip-hop at all, you've heard Klashnekoff; the nature of the UKHH scene is such that notability is not usually established through major-label albums. Mixtapes, live performances, pirate radio, and latterly music videos on cable/satellite TV stations are the means by which these artists become important. (In fact, if it were even necessary, you could argue a case for inclusion under the 'performers outside mass-media traditions' section of WP:MUSIC...) He's one of the best-known UK rappers at the moment, so unless the argument is that UK rap is so insignificant as to be unencyclopaedic, this surely has to stay. Efortune 23:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Klashnekoff, along with several other UK hip-hop artists are the future of hip-hop. Simply put, simply stated. They are making records, and making waves, and they will make a splash in the United States much the same way Paul Wall, Swisha House and Chamillionaire did. They are sort of an internet phenomenon outside out of their own countries as well, as without the internet I would have never discovered their wonderful sounds.Herzogthc 02:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If this guy is up-and-coming, that's great for him; after he accomplishs something notable, a well-written and detailed article is welcomed. But not before then. -- Mikeblas 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree that it's probably too early for Kyza and Terra Firma, who haven't released albums yet. Klash has two out though, is widely known by UK hip hop listeners, and IMHO has to stay. Efortune 13:39, 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 speedy keep - "duplicate" article is about a different and equally notable person = no merge. Kimchi.sg 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Queen (MLB player/coach)[edit]

There is already an article about him: Mel Queen (MLB pitcher). I think this article can be safely deleted/merged. --Jpwojcik 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Mel Queen (MLB pitcher) doesn't mention his coaching career, so simply merge them. -Seidenstud 06:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification required Is it the same person, they have different birth dates ???? DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 06:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these read as father/son articles about two different players. Mel Queen (MLB player/coach) appears (I havn't googled this) to be a Major league player and so passed WP:BIO --Peripitus (Talk) 08:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two different people, as noted in the article before it was nominated for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two different people, both of whom merit inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are two different people. He's not the most important person ever, but as the creator of the page, I simply made it so that the infobox for Blue Jays' managers could be navigated thoroughly (nothing bothers me more than clicking through info boxes and running into red letters. Both Mel Queen articles link to the other and mention the father/son relationship. Bad nomination in my opinion. Wencer 19:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obvious that nomination was not researched at all. BoojiBoy 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nominator didn't realize they were two different (both important) people. Vickser 01:10, 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. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenon: Z4[edit]

Unverifiable, was deleted back in April. All links on google are from message board postings, no official word from disney to signify it's release. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:33, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 04:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Powles[edit]

Non notable. No references provided.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Piechura[edit]

No relevant encyclopedia information, just looks like a list of awards Superwad 02:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but it does need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style. Google returns his name plenty of times DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Keep. Seems to meet WP:BIO as a notable member of his field. E.g., [6] [7] [8]. I agree text would be nice, but this will do until somebody writes some. William Pietri 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Meets WP:BIO, but the article's been tagged for cleanup since April, and no one's cleaned it up. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Google returns 666 hits on 'Tadeusz Piechura -wiki -answers.com +design'. Article does require attention.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a brilliant article, but not an embarrassment either; needs citations urgently, but these facts should be easy to verify if somebody knows where to look. — Haeleth Talk 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty notable as per WP:BIO. Doesn't need to meet any other qualifications. Why waste time AfDing him? There's no shortage of obscure athletes and tumbleweed townships here. -Advocron 18:08, 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. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equity levels and flows[edit]

More of data table than an encyclopedic topic. Cheese Sandwich 02:58, 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 nomination was delete. Sango123 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cee-Rock "The Fury"[edit]

Yet another "underground" rapper claiming notability for listing on Wikipedia. Article shamelessly includes external links to the few sites where the album might actually be purchased. Nothing for sale at amazon.com or towerrecords.com. Google finds 9850 hits for "Cee-rock", and only 548 hits for "cee-rock" +"The Fury". Mikeblas 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unlike most NN musicians Cee-Rock has actually had a commercial realise. That still doesn't cut it with WP:MUSIC. It's possible that he "is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" but the article makes no assertion of this. --IslaySolomon 03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That release has an amazon.com sales rank of "None". [9] I found a page that seems to claim he was involved with some other artist that charted at 37 in one of Sweeden's Top 40 charts, though that reference is at his own record company's site. [10] Maybe that can lead to something, but I think these "underground" guys aren't notable until they go commercial -- even if only because it's so hard to make a verifiable article about them with any substance. -- 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete per Islay. Perhaps his "dislike" of drugs and bad language earns him some notability, but not enough for me. AdamBiswanger1 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN and WP:MUSIC -- Alias Flood 22:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, he's on allmusic and has actually published an album but, as noted by IslaySolomon, I still don't think he's notable per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. -Big Smooth 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to billboard.com, he hasn't charted anything. -- Mikeblas 22:18, 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. Sango123 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opocalypse[edit]

This article claims that the artist has released a mixtape, which is a self-produced work and not a release on a major label. Little noteriety; searching for his name and the name of his mix tape on Google yeilds six hits [11], most of which are on Wiki-derived sites. I don't think this artist meets WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 03:22, 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. Sango123 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelakovski[edit]

The linked "official website" is "currently under maintenance". The MySpace page shows a last login of 12/15/2005, with only one friend. The article claims this artist has influenced Mobb Deep, but I can't find any relevant articles on Google [12] and the article sites no usable references. The article also says Kelakovski has influenced The RZA, and verification similarly fails; even less on Google [13] and no hard references are provided. The only release mentioned is a self-produced mixtape. Mikeblas 03:24, 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. Sango123 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt Village Records[edit]

The linked "official site" is "currently under maintenance and construction". About 277 hits on Google for "Corrupt Village Records". I can't see how this listing meets WP:MUSIC, and don't see how it meets WP:CORP. Mikeblas 03:26, 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 keep, no consensus for merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Litter Dept.[edit]

WP:MUSIC not notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Humphreys (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete....I probably would've prod'd it. AdamBiswanger1 03:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ori.livneh (talk • contribs)
  • Keep From notable artist and notable album. AtDi's complete discography has seperate articles why shouldn't this single?. This article just needs expanded to match the others: Rolodex Propaganda One Armed Scissor. --IslaySolomon 03:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge This really needs to be expanded and sourced and not deleted. It's from record of a notable band. Song from notable band, from an album, should be inculded in album's page. Yanksox 04:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the album from which this originates. -- Koffieyahoo 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Relationship of Command per Koffieyahoo. Can be expanded later but at the moment it looks like a permastub --Peripitus (Talk) 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded, or merge otherwise. It is a single, so it could merit inclusion on its own. However, if all the page says is that it was a single, that info should be put on the album page and the song should be a redirect. FYI, I adored ATDI. In fact, I was listening to them at work this morning. -- Kicking222's station is non-operational 20:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with album per Koffieyahoo. Coming from someone who loves the song, I don't think expansion will do much except include more technical details about the single, and I'm not sure it's notable enough (as a single) to merit that. For that matter, the pages for the other singles could probably be merged, too, under a "Singles" subcat. HumbleGod 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, notable single by incredibly notable band. Infobox added with image. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed, a noteable single by a very noteable band, i wouldn't be surprised to find it created again if simply deleted --Amusingmuses 01:57, 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 the Illuminati want this speedy deleted as CSD A1. Kimchi.sg 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-jurisdictional Drug Enforcement Task Forces[edit]

  • Delete supposedly a militant group that will carry out "the next American Holocaust" under the auspices of the "United Nations". [15] A quick google search show no reliable sources to even confirm the "existance" of this supposed group of our UN overlords. [16]--Jersey Devil 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above . Only 10 words long. External links are to the usual reams of RANDOMLY CAPITALISED TEXT, badly-resized photocopies and discoloured video camera stills that signify the presence of a deluded conspiracy nut. --IslaySolomon 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord! Delete, nonsensical conspiracycruft. This could be speediable under A3, as an empty article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per non-sense afd, just see this: http://www.state.ga.us/gbi/00annual/00ar_investigative.html --Striver 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250l.pdf, http://www.in.gov/cji/drugfree/drugcrime/byrnedocuments/IN%20MJTF%20Rpt%20Form%20(092502).doc, aah, just google it: http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=MJTF&btnG=S%C3%B6k&meta=... --Striver 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously guys, you should be ashemed of turning "deluded conspiracy nut" and voting procedural deleted ...--Striver 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quote:"External links are to the usual reams of randomly capitalised text, badly-resized photocopies and discoloured video camera stills". ... ... ... ... ummmm ... --IslaySolomon 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty article. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, police organizations occasionally cooperate. Hardly encyclopedic. Let's not make that an excuse for more conspiracycruft. This particular theory is unusually loony ranting[17]. Weregerbil 10:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A1. There's one line and some external links, nothing else. --DarkAudit 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete w/o prejudice: no context and no information in current stub. Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Such task-forces apparently exist, but this article says nothing about them, and two of the three external links are (as has been noted) to conspiracy-theory nuts. Keep only if an article is written and the conspiracy stuff removed. — Haeleth Talk 19:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before the blue hats come to get us. SM247My Talk 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. -- Alias Flood 23:27, 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 nomination was delete and BJAODN. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, no BJAODN, as references added after those motions nullify them somewhat. There's just not much to merge though ("Public art is called 'plop art' by some people [1] [2]") - what is there could be written into public art in someone's own words without violating GFDL if they considered it absolutely necessary. I'll dig out the references from the article if anyone wants them for that purpose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plop art[edit]

Although funny & apt, is a non-encyclopedic neologism. Cheese Sandwich 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and BJAODN it ... it is funny ! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
    • Unfortunately, because of the Great War on Short Convenient Redirects for Wikipedia-space Articles, you should have cited WP:BJAODN. Morgan Wick 04:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per David Humphreys. Fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJify, though I'd like to see this used more. HumbleGod 07:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move shouldnt this be transwikied to the dictionary wiki. I have heard this term used before.--Kev62nesl 07:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • BJify indeed. This doesn't belong here, but it's too good to just cast into the ether. --DarkAudit 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. funny, but not helpful at all. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not that funny. SM247My Talk 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not at all funny and not worthy of a place in an encyclopaedia -- Alias Flood 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge into Public art. This expression is a verifiable slang term. See [18], [19], and [20] for examples from the New York Times. As a second choice, transwiki to Wiktionary, and as a third choice, delete entirely. It doesn't deserve to be sent to BJAODN. --Metropolitan90 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Public art per Met90. After looking through thhe Google results, I do think it's a verifiable term. As a stand-alone article it would be a dicdef but I think it could be merged just fine. -Big Smooth 21:24, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABCOffice[edit]

Article about an online office supplies retailer. No asserted notability. Article was created by contributions (what a subtle choice of username) whose only edits are external link spamming. The article has been reworked a bit but still fails WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure spam. -Seidenstud 12:22, 5 July 2006 (MDT)
  • Comment Calling the page "pure spam" is an exxageration. -- ABCOffice.com 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)-- The page follows the neutral point of view criteria by sticking to an objective history of the company and avoids making outrageous claims of having "the best" of anything. The ABC page is far less spammy than Office Max's or Office Depot's Wikipedia pages, which are blatantly commercial with inclusions of sale offers, return policies, etc. The page has only has 1 external link, fewer than Office Max's page, and is full of internal links to existing Wikipedia pages, so to accuse it of external link spamming is disingenuous. Edits and links to the ABC Page I made were done in accordance with the orpan page notice posted. As for notablility issues, ABC Office is a formidable ecommerce presence on the Web, and should not be penalized for not getting the negative notoriety the Dot-bombs garnered, (who have their own Wikipedia sites). Rather than knee- jerk deletion, please excuse my lack of Wiki-coding experience and make recommendations to fix the page to bring it into compliance. Thank you.[reply]
Comment I would take that criticism more seriously if you were not responsible for vandalizing the Office Max article by including an external link to its competitor OfficeZone (which ABCOffice owns I suppose). If that's any comfort to you I've edited a bit of the Office Max article and have tagged the Office Depot article for spam-cleanup. But this AfD debate is about ABCOffice and not the articles devoted to its competitors. There are three important criticisms which you completely fail to adress:
  1. the article was started by someone directly involved with the company which begs the issue of WP:NPOV and WP:VAIN and of course WP:SPAM.
  2. the article is about a company that fails WP:CORP.
  3. the article is about a web-service that fails WP:WEB.

These are the issues you should adress. Pascal.Tesson 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe reason I mentioned the Office Depot and Office Max pages is because I used those as a template of an "acceptable" Wikipedia page for corporations, which was why I was perplexed at the negative attention the ABC page has received. As far as the NPOV, VAIN, and SPAM critiques, I am an hourly employee for ABC Office, but I have no stake in the company, other than my bi-weekly, minimum wage, check. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I was cautious to exclude sales pitches, past advertising gimicks, slogans, financial information and mascot histories. It warrants the question, though, why would anyone not affiliated with a business entity take time to originate a wikipedia page for that company? The article does include links to competitor's Wikipedia sites, only has one external link, covers only the history of the company, and the previous logo was replaced with a better, neutral graphic. Rather than being vague, if you would please reference specifics on the page that need addressing that would be appreciated. I want to be in compliance.
  • Delete there is only one way for this business to comply, unfortunately, until it becomes more notable - not a question of rewriting. Sorry. SM247My Talk 23:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm seeing a lot of company employees earnestly trying to rework advertisements into encyclopedia articles. Tychocat 09:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page tells the story about how a Mom_and_pop_shop, started 25 years ago in someone's house, has flourished in a world dominated by giant box stores. That feat alone should be notable, not fettered away. And what makes ABC Office less notable than Acxiom, ALLTEL, Precept Insurance, Tuttle_Publishing, Sikorsky, or Bass_Pro_Shops? You have ceded that the page content is acceptable, and ABC's growth and success through the Dot_com_bubble, where bigger companies failed, makes it worth noting. ABCOffice.com 10:54, 6 July 2006 (MDT)
Comment I have not ceded the page content is acceptable, nor have you addressed any of the policy issues mentioned above, beyond claiming that, as a paid employee of the firm, you can be counted on to be fair, and that this article isn't advertising. Let me be yet another person to refer you to WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, WP:VAIN, and of course WP:SPAM. Tychocat 07:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentVain: “While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company;” – It’s preferable but not required. My being an employee does not automatically call for deletion. I could have done what every other corporate contributor did and just make up a phoney username so you couldn’t trace it back to the company. At least I was honest.

NPOV: “articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.” This article does not violate NPOV because it’s a neutral history of a company. It doesn’t make biased claims, and it links to competitor’s Wikipedia sites. All the information in the text is verifiable and on public record. If you actually read the article it focuses on origins, locations and ownership changes. Sales and other non-verifiable information was omitted.

Spam: The only reasons 3 or 4 links to this page were added to other Wikipedia sites was to get the page off the “orphaned articles” list, as was instructed by the add links tag placed at the top of the page. There are 17 links to other Wikipedia pages but only 1 external link. That hardly qualifies as Spam. There is no “sales oriented language” in the text so it should be differentiated as a legitimate article about a commercial entity.

As far as notability, the page qualifies based on several articles that have been published referencing our company, including stories in: Dezignare Interior Design,out of Austin Texas; The Salt Lake Tribune; and an upcoming publication from Fahy-Williams, out of Geneva, NY. You still haven’t answered why ABC is less notable than the other companies listed in the previous posting.

I have been specific in my explanations on why the page does not violate the WP guidelines cited. Now would you please be specific on why you believe it does, other than that it was written by an employee, which according to policy is not recommended but does not automatically warrant deletion. ABCOffice.com :28, 10 July 2006 (MDT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection economy[edit]

Neologism - article admits as much. Cheese Sandwich 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Totally unsourced too. --IslaySolomon 03:57, 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. Sango123 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rahil Babooram[edit]

Myspace and personal links only. References have been requested but the main author of the article keeps removing requests. Bringing to AfD to determine whether this article passes on notability grounds. -- Longhair 04:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He lists albums but they're not commercial. Google turns up a DIY personal website[21] and his myspace[22] (where he's friends with John Lennon ... spooky). --IslaySolomon 04:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete exactly as IslaySolomonsaid. Fails WP:BIO DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy A7 seems to apply. No news articles. Albums not released on a major label. Fails WP:BIO --Peripitus (Talk) 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. — Tapir Terrific 04:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Peripitus. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a speedy delete, since speedy deletion implies no assertion of notability. The article does fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, but mentioning of two records is an attempt at creating notability. However, I don't believe the subject is notable. Yanksox 04:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. It's also non-sense. *~Daniel~* 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, but not G1 (this isn't nonsense as it is comprehensible). SM247My Talk 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i agree with the comments above. sylveStter 04:22, 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. Sango123 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario's Hoods[edit]

A directory of 'hoods" in Ontario complete with what gangs you can find in each. As odd as it sounds...it appears to be original research and uneyclopedic. Metros232 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. The article is signed This is DJ Supa Fly, comin at ya! Dont forget to look for my mixtape comin in yo face in September 2006!; make of it what you will.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Seems like groundwork (with MAJOR cleanup and citations) for a mildly useful article. But that is very unlikely. -Seidenstud 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, interesting subject but original research nonetheless. Would change my vote if citations were provided, but seems unlikely that they could exist. HumbleGod 07:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah,... Delete. I mean... wow. This could be the basis for a great magazine article or something. Where did this guy get all this info? It's really valuable... but totally original research. I don't know if an article like this could ever be made, seeing as the sources are always going to be "what Tony's brother told me" or whatever. Wow. Herostratus 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Aeropagitica, what I make of it is what we would refer to as - in technical terms - absolute crap. SM247My Talk 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aero's vote says it all. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 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. Sango123 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Clifford McCourt[edit]

This is a copy of http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_McCourt. As unfortunate as it is, the only notable fact is that the woman died as one of the many innocent victims in the september 11 terrorist attacks. Hence, no separate article is warranted for by WP:BIO. -- Koffieyahoo 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the csd tag as I could not find any precedents for victims. I did not realise there was a wikipedia project for Sept 11. Ansell 04:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sorry, Yanksox 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of 9/11 victims could be appropriate on WP, but not a page for a non-notable victim. -Seidenstud 06:10, 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. Sango123 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Drabinova[edit]

This individual is non-notable per WP:BIO and doesn't meet criteria from the proposed WP:PORN BIO guideline. Delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:58, 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 nomination was delete. Sango123 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish colloquial terms[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mais oui! 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Scottish English after an edit and tidy up DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nom. Also, this list is terrible. It's a strange combination of authentic Scots words, modern regional slang and common english language words written phonetically so as to be spoken in a Scottish accent. --IslaySolomon 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any notice of this "discussion" on the original creator of the article's talkpage. Common courtesy would seem to demand it, particularly when one notes that this article has a/ existed for quite a while without anyone's feeling the need to burn it and b/ been worked on a fair bit. I think you could argue that this stuff would be difficult to source, but there's no reason we couldn't have a discussion of Scottish dialect terms and their variance from English under this title. Merging it with Scottish English is likely only to bloat that article. So keep but urge cleanup and more careful sourcing.Grace Note 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apologies for uncivil sounding "this list is terrible" comment, however I stand by my opinion that this list is far too inconsistant to be edited or merged into anything usefull. As for it being "worked on a fair bit", that's simply not true. The body of the article has not been substantially altered since it was created[23] (Fuhghettaboutit and 84.135.201.172 only alter spelling and 82.40.236.98 adds one word). During it's half-year life span this list has increased in length by precisely one item. --IslaySolomon 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is wiktionary material. Entries should be moved there. Scottish English would not be a good home for it because some of the entries are Scots language, some are Glaswegian slang and some are just phonetically spelled English. -- Derek Ross | User:Derek Ross 06:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Derek Ross that not all of the entries should be there, which is why I said it needed editing before being merged DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 06:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll concede that there is room for a few choice examples from the list to be used in the (rather inaccessible) Scottish English article. But only after some utterly brutual editing. --IslaySolomon 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOT a dictionary, and not for indiscriminate lists per Derek Ross, and WP:NOR (Hen is used of women ? Well not in The Broons and not anywhere I lived). Also because completely redundant as the DSL does this so much better. Lastly, if you wanted to learn to speak 'Weegian, Stanley Baxter's Parliamo Glesca would be much more useful, and funnier too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, it's a pile of mince... But come on Angus, where you living - you no ken that a hen's an auld quine? /wangi 09:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, hen <- henny <- hinny <- honey <- sweet <- sweetheart. Nothing to do with poultry. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's an awful lot of "Scots" on Wikipedia which is either made up by the people who write it, or is used by very small sub-groups of people and is not what this Scot, for one, considers Scots. Embarassing. Ding it doon. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge, not good content. SM247My Talk 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat, Scottish English already covers anything in this article that falls under WP's scope. HumbleGod 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not enough sourced material to include in other articles, and lacks explanation or other structured encyclopaedic material. Stephen B Streater 21:39, 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. Sango123 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doright[edit]

This band does not appear notable - I'm not even sure it exists. Seidenstud 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Barryziff, you're not going to be able to convince this crowd unless you can provide sources; Ghits on band members and band don't turn up anything. Come to think of it, didn't I see the name "Sampson Cloud" in another article that was up for AfD recently? It certainly rings a bell... HumbleGod 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per above and the attempt by Barryziff to forge a ticket stub, as shown on the article's talk page (link to original). Complete hoax. Kuru talk 00:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, even if it wasn't a hoax.--Cúchullain t/c 06:32, 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

Early closure and Speedy Delete per nonsense clause. — Deckiller 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golgathar[edit]

nonsense ... don't know what this is all about ... appears to be someone messing about ! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-G1, patent nonsense. Creator blanked the AfD tag, I put it back. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Quick, before it eats us all!!!!!Bridesmill 05:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't sure if it was about a computer game or not ... should I put a speedy tag on it ??? DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - {{db-nonsense}} --IslaySolomon 05:56, 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. I really wish people would watchlist AfDs they participate in and address major edits. However, it seems clear that the references provided by the rewrite do not address the biosetpoint theory directly. This is still original research.

This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and we cannot "judge this concept on its scientific merits". That is the job of respected scientific journals and other secondary sources, which if they choose to give it credibility can allow an encyclopaedia article to be written that satisfies WP:NOR and WP:V. In this case they haven't. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biosetpoint[edit]

07/10/06 - There has been a major editing of this entry. It is true that the concept was first published in the journal Medical Hypothesis, but I would invite any critics to judge this concept on its scientific merits. A copy of the manuscript is available for download at the biosetpoint.org website. It is unclear what "not notable" implies as regards myself, but all one has to do is put "Blonz" into any search engine. I can provide a CV to anyone on request. --Blonz 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) E.R Blonz[reply]

Apparent neologism/not notable medical theory (11 Google hits) by a not notable Ph.D (10 Google hits) who is likely the author of the article. Appears to be an attempt to push the biosetpoint website. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although a reference is provided, Med Hypoth is a weird journal that is populated partially by cranks and kooks. Wikipedia should not have articles purely based on material from that journal unless it achieves notability outside (e.g. gradual support by authors in other journals). This deletion is not because of NOR (because it is sourced) but because of notability. NB the editor who wrote this article is also the author of the Med Hypoth paper. I sense self-promotion. JFW | T@lk 06:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr Blonz is a nutrition expert[28]. His idea that bad eating causes genetic damage is not new, incidentally. JFW | T@lk 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion for non-notable website and medical paper. User:Blonz also added "Biosetpoint" to Obesity but it was reverted 20 minutes later by a wikipedian nurse. And I wont even touch on the dubiousness of the "theory". A person can no more alter their genetic structure by eating the right food than I can will myself to become a chicken. --IslaySolomon 07:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The trick with publications is not that they are there but who FOLLOWS them up and where they are cited - I see no evidence of any such activity. Maybe in a couple of years? --Charlesknight 09:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 23:24, 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. Sango123 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Murder[edit]

Hoax by User:Barryziff, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doright. --IslaySolomon 06:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, please feel free to jump in here with a cite or a reference. Thanks! Kuru talk 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong Delete unless sources can be provided, which seems unlikely. Ghits for '"big murder" "Cabrini Green"' only turn up a few articles on Notorious BIG, which doesn't make sense if the artist is "a pretty big figure in northwestern inner-city culture." Sounds like a hoax to me. HumbleGod 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that dog won't hunt. And either way proves non-notability if no one outside a particular "inner-city" has heard of the subject. HumbleGod 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multiple inner-cities, not a particular one. therefore "northwestern."

  • Delete, could not turn up anything as a match. Would be delighted to change my opinion if something verifiable could be found. Kuru talk 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even less notable than the band, which wouldn't be notable even if it wasn't a hoax.--Cúchullain t/c 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above. --Satori Son 18:08, 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. Sango123 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet Themes[edit]

The Wikibook William Shakespeare's Works has a page on the topic of: Romeo and Juliet

Wikipedia is not a place for your essays. -- Koffieyahoo 06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment have you actually looked at the references? -- Koffieyahoo 06:29, 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. Will userfy on request of the user himself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G Ram Kumar[edit]

Self promotion. As the writer has written several books, he may meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest Delete unless his notability can be attested to from independent sources.-gadfium 09:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources have been provided. I'm not happy with the article having been written by its subject, but I'm now neutral on whether it should be kept.-gadfium 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep per news links provided below. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no sign of notability after quick web search. Pascal.Tesson 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a search with key words "G Ram Kumar" in Google search engine and you will key references to writer & author G Ram Kumar.

Reviews for Cyber Crimes book written by G Ram Kumar has appeared in the following Indian newspapers:

• The Hindu Business Line dated Jan 9th 2006 - Drive safely on the info-way http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ew/2006/01/09/stories/2006010900140200.htm

• The Deccan Herald dated Feb 5th 2006 - Highway men on the net http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Feb52006/books162256200622.asp

• The Financial Express dated March 19th 2006 - Do you have a cyber shield? http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=120847

Regarding the book Career Excellence (Vol I & II), the following are the web links:

www.atlanticbooks.com

http://www.bagchee.com/BookDisplay.aspx?Bkid=B32435

http://www.kkagencies.com/

http://www.dkpdindia.com

As for his ebooks, please check the following link:

www.globusz.com/Kumar.asp

I hope this helps to let the message stay in your website. For further info, please check the author's website www.gramkumar.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.5.152 (talk • contribs)

: AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) --Gurubrahma 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't relisted by Deathphoenix due to a possible oversight. Am relisting it below. --Gurubrahma 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The web references available in the Internet stands as solid testimony to significant achievement of this young & upcoming writer. Please let this web page about the author stay in wikipedia's website. It will help many readers to know more about him. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.32.56 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak delete - Borders on nn imo. Information helpful on deciding the status of the article has not been forthcoming despite the 10-day+ waiting period we had. Delete without prejudice to well sourced re-creation following WP:BIO guidelines. --Gurubrahma 05:43, 5 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, Gurubrahma 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete same opinion as Gurubrahma.Tintin (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

  • Delete/userfy - Per above arguments. Wickethewok 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even with this body of work his notability isn't really established. Claims that he's "young & upcoming" don't convince me; nor do the weak Ghits. HumbleGod 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy - It's as simple as: if he wants to start an article listing his work, it's a User page. -Seidenstud 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Young and upcoming. --Ezeu 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy, per above arguments. Hornplease 06:00, 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 a7'Blnguyen' | rant-line 07:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JSA Princeton 2006[edit]

This is probably a legitimate subject, but instead of being written in an ecyclopedic style, it focusses on two or three non-notable people that apparently attended the program. While I'm sure both of these fine gentlemen are very "cool" and everything, they definitely don't deserve an article detailing their lives and everyday activities. tmopkisn tlka 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Violation of WP:BIO, vanity article, too. Ryulong 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7, non notable group. Deletion would allow a editor a clean slate to in the future to write a legitimate article about the subject (if some one feels it nessary).--blue520 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - "Besides having saved the human race fourteen times" I call vanity on that --IslaySolomon 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Don't forget that "Chen is the sexiest man on the quad with his IPOD boom box" or whatever it says. Is there a CSD template for vanity reasons, instead of {{db-group}}? And while we're at it, perhaps get WP:AIV to deal with Nicky3838 (talk · contribs). Ryulong 06:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Speedy WP:VAIN DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 06:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity, nn notable.--John Lake 06:56, 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. Sorry Yeanold, but as Mikeblas says you haven't actually asserted that Villains meet any of WP:MUSIC's criteria. Those are guidelines and not policy, but no-one else seems to think that Villains should be excepted. "Regularly covered in Hip-Hop Connection" with a link to a webpage that doesn't mention them anywhere is too vague to count as significant non-trivial third-party coverage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villains (group)[edit]

Unverifiable "underground" rappers. Can't find much on Google; searching for villains +"profesah 194" on Google gives 66 hits. Not listed at AllMusic, not for sale at Amazon.com or TowerRecords.com. External links apparently should lead to record company page, but goes to a page that says "Begin by uploading an index page to replace this default holding page."; apparently an unconfigured web server or hosting account.

I don't see a way to verify that this meets WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see: the external link website has changed addresses and didn't get updated (or leave a redirect at the old spot). The new site is one of the few places you'll find to buy thir albums online, so now I'm thinking this is WP:ADS. There's one release actually available at amazon.co.uk [29], so maybe this scrapes by WM:MUSIC if it is cleaned-up. -- Mikeblas 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't think Wolftown Records cuts it as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". I am slightly worried that WP:MUSIC may be unfairly prejudice against this kind of urban music. There seems to be a lot of "underground rap" coming up for deletion. --IslaySolomon 07:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Villains, though now unoficcially disbanded, have an album widely available nationally, as well as having regular features in the world's oldest hip-hop magazine, hip-hop connection [30], so there's two criteria straight away. Also, two of the members, Tricksta and Late, have a tally of solo achievements that qualify as notable in themselves. Yeanold Viskersenn 09:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Having an album "widely available nationally" isn't one of the criteria. The group needs a charted hit on a national music chart, or two or more albums on a major label or an important indie label. The article makes no assertion that Hip-Hop Connection has had "regular features" on the group. -- Mikeblas 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry but I'm pretty annoyed, I've spent a lot of hours trying to improve the quality of articles on UK hip-hop, and in the last couple of days someone seems to have swept across my edit list and nominated everything for deletion - I check every article of against WP:MUSIC, and have given reasons why each should be kept. Do people realise that an act only needs to meet ONE of the criteria on WP:MUSIC, not ALL of them? Villains do as has been stated twice above. Yeanold Viskersenn 10:49, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic American Religious Party[edit]

Hard to find any meaningful information about this political party, other than that it once existed, according to D.C.'s (Daniel Sachs') Political Report. The Google hits seem to be either WP article copies or passing references in anyone-can-edit websites (like acronym sites listing this as an interpretation of "HARP"). Google links to its supposed founder, Aiven Andrians, seem to yield only prankish pages. Consider his Amazon personal profile, in which he claims to have "studied all the major martial-arts systems, including secret systems used by the intelligance [sic] community", and having appeared in "the season finaly [sic] of West Wing ( 1st season )", even though IMDb seems to be missing his credit for that (or any) show. Consider also his SearchWarp page, titled "Aiven The Great", which states he graduated from high school in 1993, a red flag for vanity writers. (NOTE: wikiquote:Aiven Andrians is currently under review for deletion as well.) Back to the article in question, I question whether any reliable source can be found for this organization. For that matter, I wonder if had any more than 1 member, who just happened to know how to fill out a political party registration form. Delete unless reliable evidence of notability supplied. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, you know you've got problems when most of the first 10 links are Wikipedia and forks therefrom. SM247My Talk 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, non-verifiable, and has the distinct whiff of a hoax to boot. Arker 23:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OtherSingles[edit]

Was prodded editor removed the prod without comment, nn notable dating site, fails google fails WP:WEB. John Lake 07:02, 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 speedy delete as repost —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 08:10Z

Nigga know technology[edit]

No name blog. Fails WP:WEB -- Samir धर्म 07:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, I could swear I tagged it a little bit earlier and it got deleted, at any rate an nn blog. I tagged it a speedy again if I did wrong please remove or tell me too.--John Lake 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked in the deletion log and saw that I was right, it is a 3 times repost [31]--John Lake 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the blog has a wide readership if you'd bother to go to the site and look. It is an up an coming satirical site comparable to Maddox. I have no idea why the fact that only one contributor to thecockcockcockarticle is somethign that makes it unworthy of existence, unless you are attempting to imply that I'm plugging my own blog, which is ludicrous. Show some decency and respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarc1pedia (talk • contribs)
  • The main objection to this article is not that it has only one contributor; it's mainly that this is not yet notable. Ghits yields very few unique results. Please check WP's policy on web site notability. HumbleGod 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn blog, fails WP:WEB, and is a repeat offender. No reason for us to have to keep doing this. HumbleGod 07:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In retrospect, I should have forwarded the author to WP:DRV as opposed to listing it here, after I had speedied it and he recreated it -- Samir धर्म 07:35, 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. Sango123 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Salmon[edit]

Local candidate for minor office, fails WP:BIO, non notable Fram 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even an official candidate, but a candidate to BE the candidate (i.e.; he still has to win his party's primary). "His has called for better oversight of local government finances and bookkeeping", a party platform that makes him stand out from all the other candidates in the race, I'm sure. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here warrants an encyclopedia article. Even if elected, it wouldn't be of encyclopedic value. --DarkAudit 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 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. Sango123 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Full Court Press[edit]

A non-notable college publication, and not even the main college newspaper. As the newsletter of a subsection of an organisation, allowing this to stay would open a precedent for Wikipedia inclusion standards that doesn't warrant giving a lot of thought to. Harro5 07:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, though it is not notable, it is worthwhile to persue the article as has references and linkages to the Maize Rage article. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narukaeater (talk • contribs)
Confirmed sock of article creator; now blocked indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (To the best of my knowledge) We don't list other college newspapers, why should UMichigan be any more notable? Also, Narukaeater is a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of the article, and various other Michigan-based articles that had been speedy deleted. Ryulong 08:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - newspaper for a college sports team student cheer squad. cannot see how this can be worth and encyclopedia article --Peripitus (Talk) 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into Maize Rage. Some of the this article is already included in the latter (which is a notable organization), so it would just make sense to merge the rest. --BroadSt Bully 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it appears that everything of note is already merged to Maize Rage.--Isotope23 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 23:31, 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. Sango123 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War For The Sake Of Love[edit]

Non-notable movie, gets precisely zero google hits. I've already moved the production company's page to the user namespace (User:Bradarproductions) and have been informed here that the user intends to move it back as soon as his new user rights allow. It's all just totally non-notable, I'm afraid. -- Francs2000 07:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources, no Google hits... Wickethewok 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence of notability for this movie or the production company, despite what the author of the article states. Independent sources or reviews of the work are not included and cannot be found. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad's Gone Crazy[edit]

Whilst this is a song by the eminently notable eminem, the song has never been released as a single and therefore lacks notability itself DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 07:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim for notability for this album track.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Eminem Show. No need for an article, but it is a plausible search term and any info regarding the song can be included at the album. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Youngamerican. If searched for, something should come up. -- Kicking222 20:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirect shouldn't be necessary--fails notability (even if by a rapper as prominent as Eminem), and anyone who would be looking for info on this song will know to look under Eminem anyway. HumbleGod 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge any useful information into The Eminem Show. Eminem is so prominent that I think the redirect is worthwhile. Vickser 01:18, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Saeed Al Mulla[edit]

Fails WP:BIO possible WP:VAIN only 4 ghitsDavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax. UAE site does not list a Ministry of Transportation. --DarkAudit 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [32] has him addressing the United Nations in the role of Director of Child Development Centre at the Ministry of Education and Youth. For his hotel business see [33]. Dubai does have a Minister of Transporation - I can't confirm that Mohammed Saeed Al Mulla once was the minister, but it's quite possible. Googling for him turns up the company Mohammed Saeed Al Mulla & Sons. Note Saeed may also get transliterated as Zayed - I think the article is likely to be mainly correct. Can anyone from the area confirm? Dlyons493 Talk 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 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. Sango123 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chocolate Speedway Band[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC possible WP:HOAX as there are a big fat 0 ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails to reach WP:MUSIC & more importantly WP:V.--blue520 09:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedy if possible) per nom, hoax/nn.--Andeh 10:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unverifiable, probably a hoax, makes little sense. Might be worth BJOADNing selected paragraphs, but it probably doesn't meet the quality standard. - makomk 19:35, 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. Sango123 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewpedia[edit]

Irrelevant, Jewpedia has 6 articles! Sanbec 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely not notable. DarthVader 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only 6 articles, database errors, one editor and no activity since 2004 --Peripitus (Talk) 09:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 09:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and I concur with Peripitus... 6 articles and no activity in 2 years is a long way from meeting the guidelines.--Isotope23 13:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not for things that seemed like a good idea at the time. If this were new, I'd consider giving this a chance, but after 2 years? Sorry. --DarkAudit 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Daniel575 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Jon513 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Timothy Chavis 2:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this discussion alone would constitute something like 20% of the content on it in terms of length, far too small and apparently abandoned for some reason. SM247My Talk 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. ---Baba Louis 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do we have some kind of sister projec that could guarantee an article for every wiki-based encyclopedia? It seems like a shame to delete these even though they are clearly non-notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2791 page views and 5 users, according to Special:Statistics? So old version of MediaWiki that it doensn't even have Special:Version? Heck, my one-user MediaWiki site almost beats these stats (and wins by article count of 143), and it's been running less than 4 months... looks like this site hasn't got much wind under its wings even from its core users. And not even spammers seem to be bothered to visit. ::shakes head slowly:: --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even this discussion is longer than all the artciles of this wiki! --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 10:00, 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. Sango123 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Jackson[edit]

Also nominating copy-paste Shauna Shapiro Jackson. Autobiographical article for entertainment attorney. Has an IMDB entry with production credits on 9 low budget films and 1 TV series, but that isn't enough to convince me of notability. Oldelpaso 08:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have redirected the copy-and-paste to the article that has been nominated for deletion. -- Francs2000 08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP arent I glad convincing you isnt the criteria http://dick.imdb.com/name/nm0414042/bio .--Kev62nesl 08:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That IMDb bio was written by Shauna Shapiro Jackson. It is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV. Mr Stephen 08:50, 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. Sango123 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chabot[edit]

Possible WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO very few ghits Only external link is to the artists own site DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:27, 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 nomination was delete. Sango123 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knucks[edit]

Another WP:BJAODN candidate - Fails WP:NEO- eek! meant WP:NFT, probably DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:41, 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 redirect to Let's Dance. – Avi 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricochet (David Bowie song)[edit]

Again the artist is notable, but the song ain't DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:51, 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 and Cleanup. – Avi 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep_Freeze_(software)[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement for the product. Nathan.manzi 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if referenced. A very well-known piece of software in the corporate world; however, the article needs references to prove this. Is something like [35] the sort of thing that'll get it comfortably within WP:SOFT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevildo (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Regardless of notability, this article has some POV issues fyi. The article claims the product is a leader in the field and that some Argentinian guy has a grudge against it...? These claims need to be cited. Wickethewok 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep, primary problem is POV (reads like a press release or corporate web page), and notability isn't entirely convincing. Might be willing to change my vote with a) a revision to remove POV problems and b) comments from users familiar with the program. Didn't read Tevildo's comment close enough; sounds like someone who would know, with an edit history that doesn't hint at bias. Changing my vote with the caveat that POV issues should be worked out if it's to be kept. HumbleGod 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above stated, I have to note that I'm pretty uncomfortable with aspects of this nomination. The user who nominated this for AfD was heavily involved in another page up for AfD (possibly an employee of that program's publisher distributor) that lists this product as a "direct competitor." I don't like the possibility that an employee from Company A is nominating competing software from competing Company B for AfD. Doesn't really invalidate the nomination, but it does make me squirm a little. HumbleGod 00:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no, I think he's an employee of one of the distributors for HDGuard, see Eye4you AFD. It is possible that he's simply trying to help us by clearing out non-notable software, but this sort of conflict of interest is a factor. Kuru talk 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed original comment to reflect this. Doesn't reduce my discomfort with this, and still feel it deserves mention, but as I said it doesn't necessarily affect the validity of the nomination. HumbleGod 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, agreed! It absolutely deserves mention, and your logic above mirrors my own feelings. Kuru talk 01:20, 6 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, and I think that this article shows signs of it also. Nathan.manzi 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thank you very much for the clarification. This does alleviate my concerns! Kuru talk 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and mine as well. I agree that POV is a factor with the current version of this article, and hedge my "weak keep" vote on the hope that this will be changed soon. Judging from the edit history of the article and editor contributions, it doesn't appear that corporate influences were directly a factor; if anything, I think some editors may have just relied too much on company lines when fleshing out the article. Hopefully this can be fixed, otherwise I expect we'll be seeing this here again soon. HumbleGod 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seems to meet many of the requireds in the guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE - mainly section 1, with many (notable) press mentions[36]. Some industry awards.[37] I'm not seeing anything on the corporate site that I wouldn't associate with professional enterprise level software; per Tevildo's voucher above. Article does have a little too much adcopy in it, and it should be copyedited to weed out the puffery. Kuru talk 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Kuru EuroSong talk 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good article, but need to check if the software is well-known and distributed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Known software, has press mentions, etc. --Zoz (t) 12:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep article has serious POV and neutrality issues as it stands, but these can be fixed without deletion. Arker 23:50, 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 Keep Eluchil404 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PARANOIA[edit]

Totally WP:NN magazine (15,000 circulation in the US and Canada), appears to be self promoting DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by Alhidell (talk · contribs · count). Added for info purposes.--Andeh 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided, I recieved a huge amount of g-hits for "paranoia magazine". But this is the users ONLY contributions.--Andeh 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it could do with a cleanup to get rid of the promotion, the statement: "PARANOIA received a 2001 Award of Merit in the Writer's Digest Zine Publishing Awards, and has been rated by Playboy magazine as a "Top 10 Zine."" provides enough notability for me. Playboy and Writer's Digest don't just give out awards to any magazine. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per MacGyverMagic, and Move/Rename to Paranoia (magazine) or Paranoia magazine. The ALL CAPS usage is not unlikely as a general search term, and should probably go to Paranoia or Paranoia (disambiguation) instead. Tevildo 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Strike that last suggestion, as it implies we need all caps redirects for every single article. :) Tevildo 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I've actually seen this zine/magazine in record stores and independent bookstores before several times.--Nick Y. 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm. Move to Paranoia (magazine) and redirect PARANOIA to Paranoia. --Zoz (t) 13:11, 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. Sango123 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.O.S.S.[edit]

Article only contains speculative info. No sources. Can't possibly be notable until it's released. Artist Crooked I only released mix tapes and had article deleted back in August Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Crooked I. I just deleted that one again since there's no change in his status when it comes to releases. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself says No official release has been set, despite many rumored dates. -- Mikeblas 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No track listing, no nothing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --DarkAudit 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. By the way what does Releasement mean?!?!? DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else; non-notable release by non-notable artist whose page got deleted last year. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, while Crooked I may not have many releases of his own, he is pretty notable, and had label credit on Ashanti's top twenty hit "Baby." GassyGuy 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Long before the introduction of the Palm Pilot, Casio used to market a number of different PDAs called the B.O.S.S. (an acronym for Business Organizer Scheduling System). [38] Surprisingly enough we have an article for the Sharp Wizard (its competitor) but not the BOSS. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Slgrandson. There isn't even a track listing. --Zoz (t) 12:09, 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 transwiki to Wikibooks. – Avi 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programmatic Web Browsing in Visual Basic .Net[edit]

Wikipedia is not a programming howto. -- Koffieyahoo 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom, blatantly a "how-to". Wickethewok 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above -- Steel 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikify to wikibooks, the content looks useful (but I only skimmed the article). --ColourBurst 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 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 merge and redirect to Air transports of Heads of State. – Avi 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Force One[edit]

Primarily, this article is somewhat duplicated by the content in Air transports of Heads of State and No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF. It is also uncomfortably partisan to use this title, which was coined by the media and has no particular meaning. Also, the content is essentially news and any unique information not already covered in the other articles, plus Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Tony Blair, should really be placed in them, not in this branch article. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concur entirely, probably fails WP:NEO too. --Richhoncho 10:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perfectly reasonable article about an important subject of political debate. If the name is the big stumbling block, it can be changed, it alone shouldn't consign a good article to deletion. Erath 11:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge some content to No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF. Don't redirect. I totally agree with excellent nomination. Bwithh 11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if necessary move to Air transports of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, although Blair Force One is the name used even by the Times and the BBC. The plans for new craft spread beyond 32 Squadron ("The Royal Family and government ministers do not always use No. 32 Squadron's planes, with both the Queen and Tony Blair recently using chartered British Airways jets, primarily for intercontinental travel."), and air transports of heads of state is merely a list; merging all this info there would unbalance the page. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to the articles it largely duplicates: No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF and Air transports of Heads of State (which is not "just a list" ashas been asserted above). Casper Gutman 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if necessary move to Air transports of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and slap in a redirect, though this seems like the title that's far more likely to be searched for. This should definitely not be merged to No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, as this aircraft's very purpose is to replace that squadron's connection with the royals and politicians. Once the name of the new fleet has been announced, this article will be moved. Vizjim 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. And comments
    • Officially 32 Squadron's VIP/executive role is "secondary to its principal function of providing communications and logistical support for military operations, and that the Squadron's capacity should be based on military needs only." [39] That page should be maintained for the history of the squadron and brief overview of current role with a {{main}} link to main article.
    • Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is a very clumbsy title but then I can't think of anything better. Actually needs to be clumbsy as its important to note in title it has a dual Royal/executive use.
    • What's the problem with a redirect? It may be an unacceptable title for Wikipedia but it's a very commonly used term (BBC, Guardian, Times, Independent). It certainly needs to be mentioned in passing in the new article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark83 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 July 2006
  • Keep There's been a decent sized debate about this in the UK. I remember a lead editorial in the Telegraph about it, and the Guardian and BBC have, as stated above, covered it and used this title. I think this will be a useful resource when the debate comes up again in 2008, when the plane actually gets delivered. I'm not opposed to renaming and redirecting Blair Force One to a more encylcopedic title, but I do think at least having the redirect from Blair Force One is important. The article itself seems well written, encyclopedic, and likely to grow. Vickser 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge complete text and redirect. If the phrase is so widely used in the British media, I see no problem with a redirect to a subsection in No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, but a new page seems like a stretch right now. HumbleGod 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly not a WP:NEO failure. It has considerable usage in major media outlets, eg the BBC, The Times (might have to searhc for Blair Force One), and even on Google, with inverted commas around it, it returns thousands of entries. It is a major topic of UK political discussion. In terms of the name, "POV" but popular names, as long as they are explaine properly, are acceptable; see, for example, Winter of Discontent. Batmanand | Talk 11:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/clarify: Citing Google always really concerns me. The "thousands of entries" include an awful lot of duplicates, blogs (not acceptable under WP guidelines for external links, which puts them on dubious ground as references), and rebranded copies of Wikipedia itself. As for the ocurrences on reputable sources like the BBC, that's a fair point and indicates a reasonable level of public familiarity can be presumed. However, that does nothing to move us away from the problem that as an article title, it's too narrow, and lets down Wikipedia because it tries to be clever rather than trying to be informative. The discussion of politics (as opposed to concrete fact) is perfectly valid, but that's not the point here. The politics are not an article in themselves. I'd like to clarify my vote, since it's possibly lost since I nominated the deletion; in the light of this discussion it's a strong rename but not precluding a merge with the other relevant articles, such as that about the now defunct Queen's Flight. (i.e. the version of it prior to its becoming a redirect!) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern with the Google test (it is a legitimate concern), but just glancing down the top twenty or thirty entires, only a few are blogs, and most are commerical UK newspapers. Just out of interest, if we move this article to UK executive transport or something like that, would people also like to move Winter of Discontent to 1978 UK Winter industrial troubles or something? Batmanand | Talk 13:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of becoming seen as a pedant, yes I would! ;-) It's also a paraphrase of a very famous phrase in Shakespeare, and as such I'd rather the article had a disambiguation page! – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This "Blair Force One" will be not be operational until after Blair has ceased to be PM (assuming statements are correct), so the name is unlikely to survive. If the aircraft are used for shuttle diplomacy we'll also have to list, perhaps (and tongue-in-cheek), "Brown Farce One" or "Cameron Island Airways." Then it is periously close to having a category "Nicknames appended to governmental flights" It's not about should it be here, it's about how it should be here! --Richhoncho 09:33, 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. Sango123 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Burger[edit]

Advert of a local non-notable shop Optimale Gu 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fries. WP:CORP. Weregerbil 11:14, 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. Sango123 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life After Death Row[edit]

  • Delete. Basic crystal ball gazing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable documentary, as per crystal ball comments. Perhaps if it gains attention on the international film festival circuit?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:22, 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. Sango123 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wok'on[edit]

Neologism, couldn't find any references to this term via google. Delete unless notable sites using this term can be found. Wokon (talk · contribs · logs) created the article as their 3rd edit.--Andeh 10:02, 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 nomination was delete. Sango123 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingershield safety (USA) Inc.[edit]

Blatant spam for non-notable company, no assertion opf meeting WP:CORP, their site has been reverted several times from safety-related articles, and the user Nikpatel (talk · contribs), whose creation this is, has no history elsewhere - and took up immediately after I left a spam warning for Davidwikipedia (talk · contribs), whose edits are also (no doubt quite by coincidence) entirely related to spamming this product all over the project. Just zis Guy you know? 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 debate was speedy deleted as hoax by User:Alex Bakharev. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of Totally Awesome[edit]

Looks to be a hoax, pretty obviously made up nonsense. Nscheffey(T/C) 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. Sango123 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Bones origins[edit]

One of a small number of articles on Skull and Bones that consists largely of unsourced and non-neutral original research. Possible merge to Skull and Bones, but I don't think there's much in here which is sufficiently neutral and well-sourced to be worth merging. Almost certainly part of a POV campaign, like Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Just zis Guy you know? 10:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article is not verfiable, sourced, and appears to constitute a heavy element of original research.--Isotope23 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quiet, so they can't hear you... SM247My Talk 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another day, another poorly-sourced, highly POV article on S&B. HumbleGod 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did Skull & Bones piss in this guy's cornflakes, or what? -- GWO
  • Save - This is an interesting article. It can be rewritten to focus on the facts that can be supported (e.g., those facts backed up by the Yale archives). Other speculative ideas, or hearsay, can be eliminated or highlighted as such. Blanket censorship isn't an appropriate answer - there's some truth to every story. --SG
  • Delete. Hurrah, another Skull and Bones AfD! An article on the origins would be wonderful, if it was based on hard facts. However, this isn't - it's pure speculation - in fact, doesn't even really talk about the origins; it just dances around the topic by discussing the contents of the society's "tomb". Zetawoof(ζ) 05:22, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD G1 by User:Deb. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transmidgetards[edit]

most likely hoax. Odd chance that this is from some book/computer game. However no Google hits. Travelbird 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter BS. Weregerbil 11:10, 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 Keep, whether this list is redirected or merged, and where, is a debate that can be handled out of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of genetic and rare diseases[edit]

238 kb of copy & paste from a cited source, mostly redlinks or redirects (since several of these are known by more than one name). Almost a speedy as a plain collection of links. Was originally at "list of rare diseases" but since the cited source form whihc it was originally copied was called genetic and rare diseases I moved it; some genetic disorders are not, after all, rarer than others. Was kept by default at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rare diseases. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will call this to the attention of an editor who may know more about this list, but why is the AfD not noted on the article page? Sandy 12:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'd be an important list, a helping hand in work, but not like that. Some of the diseases are not rare, etc. Anyway we have a List of genetic disorders with nice tables, abc order. NCurse work 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of genetic disorders. Sandy 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of genetic disorders. Or maybe House (tv) -- GWO
  • Keep and move back to List of rare diseases. As the source [40] states, this is not a list of genetic diseases, but a list of rare diseases. (The words genetic and rare diseases do appear in the source, but they refer to the group providing the information, not the list.) Therefore, it is not redundant with List of genetic disorders. Spacepotato 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is at least as encyclopedic as lists of episodes of long-in-syndication tv shows, fictional characters in those episodes, fictional military units, and the rest. When does fiction become encyclopedic while fact is just "cruft" and gets deleted? Carlossuarez46 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is encyclopedic. Mário 19:58, 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. – Avi 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abadpour[edit]

There are no notable "Abadpours" listed, no sources to verify any of the information. This is a bunch of speculated fluff that serves no purpose. For as useful as this is, I might as well make a page about my pets.Gnrlotto 02:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteGnrlotto 02:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still remains non-notable.Gnrlotto
Seems more so than this one [42]and a number of the other stubs.--John Lake 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So because a bunch of people jump off a bridge, we should too? Poor reasoning. I'll be nominating that one for deletion next.Gnrlotto 01:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Edit: Nomination for Gettleman complete.Gnrlotto 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be nominated, but what do you mean "So because a bunch of people jump off a bridge, we should too?", what does that have to do with either stub?--John Lake 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point in keeping this one was that, in your opinion, there are other pages of less notable content. That's the old high school excuse, "Mom, I only drunk at the party because my friends Dave and John were doing it too." Just because some other people posted useless genealogy cruft pages doesn't mean we should let someone else's page stay. Just delete 'em as we find 'em. Otherwise you're using the "They jumped off a bridge, so I'm going to as well," excuse. That's poor reasoning for keeping a page. Gnrlotto 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but verify. It looks similar to other name stubs. Main thing I see lacking is a notable person with that surname. --DarkAudit 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of surnames all over the world. If it was turned into a hndis page then maybe. The article is also vanity for the creator, User:Abadpour. Punkmorten 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is non-notable and unverified, and per punkmorten, vanity. -- Kicking222 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 22:06, 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. Sango123 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chyanne Jacobs[edit]

Useless article. Hempeater 00:51, 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 was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdeep singh faridkot[edit]

Non-notable person. Kewpid 12:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Pascal.Tesson 12:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per a7. Could've been tagged as such from the start. --DarkAudit 14:13, 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 Eluchil404 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanther[edit]

note: This AfD entry was incorrectly listed on the July 5th articles for deletion page for some amount of time today (link was to previous AfD). This has been corrected.--Isotope23 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not notable, perpetual stub, limited number of contributers suggests possible vanity

  • Perpetual stub - Would someone looking for information on Japanther get any useful information out of this article that their website would not massively superset?
  • Limited number of contributers.
  • Wikipedia ought not to be another platform that places "mainstream = notability" constraints on independent music. Can you think of any reason why Japanther is more notable then any other of the 5 million bands in New York City. This has not been accomplished in the entire history of the article. If a less stubby article could be put in place, I will happily retract my nomination.

--Jonathan Williams 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Jonathan Williams only has 9 contributions and 6 of them are in regards to trying to delete the Japanther article. This article has already been through a deletion process in December 2005 and it failed, because the nominator realized that the band is notable and withdrew. I don't understand the point of these AfDs, especially this one. You saw I dePRODed, why didn't you express your concerns to me directly instead of dragging this out into another AfD? Japanther has a very large cult following all over the U.S., more so than other mundane bands. They have an allmusic page, they've been reviewed by pitchforkmedia.com (among other sites), and rated at last.fm. I will say it again "Wikipedia ought not to be another platform that places "mainstream = notability" constraints on independent music". --Howrealisreal 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Meets WP:MUSIC guidelines... though they are definitely close to the line.--Isotope23 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well-known indie rock band, clearly satisfies WP:MUSIC. Here is a link to a Pitchfork review. Is currently touring the country, see the tour section on their web site. This is a no-brainer and should never have been nominated. Please do your homework before nominating obviously notable indie rock bands for deletion. Amazinglarry 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "obviously" notable is apparently in the eye of the beholder... This band is very near the line of WP:MUSIC. There are 3 provided sources, but none is so expansive as to make the "trivial" clause of WP:MUSIC a non-argument. The tour could be argued either way as well. Personally I don't rate bar shows as a tour. Probably the best claim towards WP:MUSIC is that Japanther is notable on their local scene, but nothing has been advanced to prove this. I still opine keep because while they are on the line, they appear to be on the inclusion side, but calling this obvious is hyperbole and Amazinglarry would do well to read WP:AGF before saying this should never have been nominated.--Isotope23 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Band satisfies WP:MUSIC. I also concur and applaud Amazinglarry's rebuttal: "Please do your homework before nominating obviously notable indie rock bands for deletion." Messwemade 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Japanther has a very large cult following all over the U.S., more so than other mundane bands" is not quantifiable. Many barely notable indie bands have "national tours" (perhaps this should be discussed wherever AfD criteria is supposed to go). Playing crappy Food Not Bombs shows for three years != notability. Last.fm inclusion is a very very dubious criteria as it has a much more liberal inclusion policy and little editorial oversight. Again, if you can expand the stub, please do so. (as far as the paucity of my edits, I've finally decided to register after making a moderate number anonymously.) --Jonathan Williams 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily fits "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" criteria in WP:MUSIC, Google shows (146,000 ghits, btw) it's been featured in Vice Magazine, Gothamist (per article), Dusted Magazine, The Stranger (Seattle), Dallas Observer, New York Magazine, etc. Also I like to reiterate that article length is not a criteria for deletion, nor does it necessarily prove any obscurity of the topic. hateless 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 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 I am going to Speedy keep this because the nomination is flawed and is probably a violation of WP:POINT, and there have not been any delete opinions expressed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Americans[edit]

This is to be fair. The List of Irish-Americans page is up deletion, so this page should be too. Fair2224 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm torn, leaning Weak keep. (I'm just copying my comments from the other AFD.) 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 13:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "to be fair" isn't really a valid reason for deletion. This is a "list of lists", and while I personally don't like second level lists like this all that much, I don't see a compelling reason to delete them either.--Isotope23 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you vote keep on this, please also then vote keep on the Irish-American lists. 75.3.49.50 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list serves as an important focal point for the lists of American Jews and is clearer and more accesible than the category. It is necessary. Nesher 14:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason given for deletion. Bad nomination. This could probably just as well be a category though. Wickethewok 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep — We've been down this road before. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:06, 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. – Avi 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Confession[edit]

another band promo page linking to (gasp!) their myspace account I actually was looking for the movie The confession starring Yves Montand and Simone Signoret; these vanity/promo pages are not harmless Reimelt 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A7 per nom. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. The article on the film, incidentally, will be under its French title L'Aveu, but it's not been written yet. Tevildo 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Their official website is clearly commercial and it details (albeit not very clearly) a tour at various locations throughout the USA. Plus they're on AMG [43] and their record's on Amazon [44]. --IslaySolomon 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I would note that "getting" your record on Amazon requires you to procure a UPC symbol, and essentially nothing else; the whole point of AMG, meanwhile, is to be a complete listing whether its inclusions are notable or not--surely that's not to be WikiPedia's guideline. In short, there's a reason neither Amazon nor AMG are in the guidelines. I don't want any war over this, but having been an editor at a music magazine, I assure you there are many thousands of bands across the globe that sell in various chain stores and have opened for a more notable band. I'm inclusionist by nature, but this is the title of a notable topic (at least, it will re-direct to the french title, I hope.) Reimelt 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) BTW, I forgot to add, per telvido, no assertion of notability; Islay defends the article as it could be not as it is. Reimelt 19:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium Blood Poisoning[edit]

It's clear from the content of his posts [45] and the total lack of any references that this whole Titanium TBP thing is a hoax.--Snori 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax; "Titanium also has a tendency to bio-accumulate in tissues that contain silica but it does not play any known biological role in humans." - Titanium smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smurrayinchester... no verifiable information backs up this article and all facts point to this being an obvious hoax.--Isotope23 13:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. Tevildo 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. --DarkAudit 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as hoax/non-verifiable. Secondly the website at the end of the link Titanium FAQ seems to be down, but is still accesable via google search cache and has zero to do with Titanium Blood Poisoning or even the element.--blue520 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above, or people might stop flying on airliners. SM247My Talk 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. It's not even funny or offensive; what a waste of time... --die Baumfabrik 06:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite completely but do not delete; a search of Medline reveals 338 articles about titanium/toxicity. 68.50.203.109 06:41, 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 redirect to Titanium nitride. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium coating[edit]

It's clear from the content of his posts [46] and the total lack of any references that this whole Titanium TBP thing is a hoax.--Snori 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Titanium nitride. Yes, this appears to be a hoax based around the supposed existence of Titanium Blood Poisoning, but titanium coating is a real process and we have a perfectly good article about TiN coatings for this to redirect to.--Isotope23 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Isotope23. Tevildo 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. SM247My Talk 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Isotope23; it's good to see someone try to salvage this sorry situation. (memo to self: get down to B&Q tomorrow). --die Baumfabrik 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as written looks like a hoax, but redirect as there appears to be such a thing as a titanium coating. 68.50.203.109 06:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium spatula[edit]

It's clear from the content of his posts [47] and the total lack of any references that this whole Titanium TBP thing is a hoax.--Snori 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete-hoax; you'd also be hard pressed to find Ca2O4DHe 6, mentioned in this article, given that making helium bond like that is pretty much impossible at room temperature, and there is no element "D". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spatula. Yes this article is just a feeder for the author's Titanium Blood Poisoning hoax, but companies do manufacture titanium/alloy spatulas.--Isotope23 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. Incidentally, "D" is occasionally used for deuterium (2H), as in D2O, heavy water. But that's irrelevant to this AfD. Tevildo 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarkAudit (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry about that. I'll be more careful in the future. --DarkAudit 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax. Redirect per Isotope23, no real need for separate pages for types of spatulas based on construction material. --blue520 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SCIENCE. SM247My Talk 23:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no redirect necessary--can't imagine anyone looking up info on spatulas would look up "titanium spatula" and not just spatula. HumbleGod 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BAND it's a minihoax for the titanium blood-poisoning hoax. I'm with User:HumbleGod, there's no need for a redirect. --die Baumfabrik 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: because helium is inert, hard to believe the chemical Ca2O4DHe6 exists; indeed this is a giveaway that the article is a hoax. 68.50.203.109 06:29, 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, while two people said "Delete or merge", I count the first option as the first choice. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005[edit]

I proposed merging this ages ago into Phoenix Film Critics Society or possibly a single article on Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards. The major problem here is that there is no assertiont hat the Phoenix Film Critics Society is in any way important or notable. I don't see the award winners listing this in thier IMDB entries or websites. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all articles for particular years, leave the society page for now. SM247My Talk 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all individual year pages, article on the society should suffice; listcruft makes me leery about a merge, but if that's the consensus I throw in with Weak Merge instead of delete. HumbleGod 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Smerge all individual years. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 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 redirect to Cheating in online games. – Avi 14:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALT-F4 Scam[edit]

Seems unencyclopedic to me Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - umm ... WP:NOR and WP:NFT. I can't imagine that there are overly many verifiable sources that call it a "scam". It is a joke ... not a scam. BigDT 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this constitutes original research and is not verified. As BigDT stated this is more of a joke or prank than a "scam". If this gets sourced (and for the record I couldn't find anything I would consider to be a reliable source for this) it should be merged to Computer prank.--Isotope23 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cheating in online games. See the secton on Cheating in MMORPGs, the ALT-F4 Scam is already covered. --blue520 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Blue250. BJK 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. What OR - haven't you read my scholarly dissertation on MMORPG scams, which was published in Nature? :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite surprised that no-one has actually written about this particular style of prank (which, in the "press Alt-H to log on" form, has been around for quite a while, now). But whilst I could find people chuckling at the joke, I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the style of prank itself. Uncle G 17:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as OR, per blue520. Ziggurat 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but then shouldn't it be removed from Cheating in online games as unverified original research... thus making it redirect to an article devoid of information on the topic?--Isotope23 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too trivial to be documented in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 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 Eluchil404 00:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Thompson[edit]

nn university player Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep If it's true that she is in the top 15 all-time for scoring as one user said on the talk page, I think she deserves a stub. AdamBiswanger1 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3-time All-American attests to notability. --DarkAudit 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - University basketball players clearly fail WP:BIO. Since Basketball is a professional sport then university players are at too low a level. New guidelines for athletes are being considered and no-one has suggested that amateur players in professional sports should be included. If she is included then amateur soccer players, cricketers etc who have done well at University also must be in there. BlueValour 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, women's basketball wasn't a professional sport in 1985, and she was probably 40 when the WNBA was started in 1997, so your entire argument is invalid. No offense. -- Kicking222 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep most college athletes ought not be retained. This one is a distringuished college athlete and fits w/in WP:BIO definition. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Distinguished amateur athlete. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Absolutely notable as not just an athlete in a major sport at a major college in that sport, but as a particularly good athlete, as well. -- Kicking222 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep along the lines of AdamBiswanger1 and CrazyRussian. HumbleGod 00:50, 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. Avi 05:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Feehley[edit]

Hoax or actress so non-notable that there are no google or IMdB hits. {Prod} removed without comment by incarnation 3 of the creator Peripitus (Talk) 13:12, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jick's law[edit]

Someone tagged this as speedy; regrettably too coherent. Prodded by y.t. as "nonnotable law, original research"; an ip removed the prod without providing a reason. I get 78 google hits (uh, make that two pages), most from Wikipedia mirrors. Based on a cursory search, no one seems to use this term for this, ahem, particular philosophical-ethical concept in real world, and comparison to Godwin's law is particularly ridiculously grandiose in this light. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this appears to be a neologism. I can't find any evidence this is used outside of Kingdom of Loathing...--Isotope23 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. OR. DarthVader 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources, and, like others, I am unable to find any evidence that this concept has gained any traction in the world at large outside of its creator. I can find no secondary source material, discussing this law, that is from any source that is independent of the law's creator. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO WP:NFT DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as already covered SM247My Talk 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons. --Grouse 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as important principle in popular online game. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is that important, you should be able to provide sources published by people other than its creator xyrself to demonstrate that the concept has gained traction in the world at large, outside of the creator. Please cite sources. I couldn't find any. Uncle G 13:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't noteworthy in any way. Aside from the fact that its not written in the style and tone of Eponymous laws, it isn't correct (or is only partly correct) - fear of serious consequences such as bodily harm or arrest is the primary reason people do not attack each other on the street; it does not explain or address anything at all, really, much less why people behave so badly online; and it does not actually add anything to understanding, even ironically, of...anything. The above reasons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not necessarily true that people mostly don't attack each other for fear of arrest or bodily harm. That doesn't mean, however, that this article should be kept. Mo-Al 23:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunfin kayak[edit]

This is an advertisement for a brand of kayak that doesn't seem to exist yet. Wikipedia isn't the place to start promoting your new product. FreplySpang 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatant advertisement for a nn product. AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Reads like a potential copyvio, but I haven't been able to track down any matches. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an ad, reads like an ad, smells like an ad ... Fails WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. As Terry Pratchett once eloquently put it (to paraphrase) - if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck, stuff an orange in its bottom and eat it with peas. SM247My Talk 23:44, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo[edit]

Does not appear to satisfy the inclusion guidelines for musicians or humans. Google has 22 unique hits for "Marko Selic" and 34 unique for "marcelo de facto." Does not have an allmusic.com entry. His first album was on a label with seven releases, the second on a label I'm fuzzy on. While cautious of systemic bias, delete unless information from third party sources demonstrating that the guideline is satisfied. - brenneman {L} 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No real notability of any kind asserted in the article. -- Kicking222 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 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 14:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir john barton[edit]

No vote procedural nomination. Blanked by well meaning contributor on suspicion of a hoax. Is it? You decide!- CrazyRussian talk/email 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article cites no sources. I can find no sources that indicate even the simple existence of the Sir John Barton described in this artice. The only Sir John Barton that I can find is tangentially referenced in P. Grodzinski (1947–1949). "A Ruling Engine used by Sir John Barton - and its Products". Transactions of the Newcomen Society. 26.. He appears to have been an engineer, not a naval explorer. One can see a picture of one of his engravings here. We should probably have an article on him. But the Sir John Barton in this article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google reveals two (moderately) famous Sir John Bartons - a fourteenth-century landowner ([48]) and an eighteenth-century engineer ([49]), but not this chap. Hoax confirmed. Tevildo 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. Claira [sic] Barton as his daughter? It seems that there was indeed a Sir John Barton, but he was either some guy in the middle ages [50], "Clerk to the Board of Trade and Foreign Plantations" [51], or the "Deputy comptroller to the British Royal Mint"[52]. In any event, it seems entirely unverifiable. AdamBiswanger1 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also [53]. —Centrx→talk • 03:48, 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 debate was CSD not by me - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Kranski's Painful Ejaculation Jamboree[edit]

Ummm, hoax, perhaps? The band does not exist, and neither does the album. I'm amazed this has survived for so many hours... Fram 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clear hoax. Unfortunately, the article claims that the band/album was Grammy nominated, which I believe excludes it from being speedy-able, regardless of the fact that it is made-up. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Such a claim in this case should not allow this article a minute more. It is patent nonsense and a hoax. --DarkAudit 15:12, 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 keep. – Avi 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barra binte Samawal[edit]

A DRV consensus agreed that this article, previously speedied, deserved a full hearing at AfD. Please consult the DRV discussion for additional information regarding notability before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into both the husband and the kid. Redirect to one of them, it doesn't matter much whom. Notability is by association only. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or if must, Merge and redirect. Every person from that era that we have any information on is inherintrly notable, otherwise, no infromation would have reached us. This person is not a exception, in the contratry, she has such a close link one of the biggest Jewish tribes of her time, being married to its leader, as well as being the mother of what is considered a queen: Muhammads wife, making her at the same time the mother in law of Muhammad. I argue that there is no real debate regarding her notability.
The issue is how much there is to write about her. And the fact is that we do not know. This is not due to her doing so little that we can not established if she actualy did anything or not, rather, due to FUTON, much of information is not easily available on the internet or even printed books. Actualy, much of the information is not even collected in the same place in the Arabic books. Due to this its hard to collect information.
Our goal is to collect information of this 600th century people, and the best way is to accomodate for everyone to add any bit of information they might have. And considering that any bit is welcomed, people might abstain from contributing if they are needed to start a whole new article about the person. I understand that it is not advisable to have a stub on a semi-recent, semi-notable person. But i argue this is not such a case.
Having said that, my fianal word is that this is a good place of having a stub: not since nobody cares, but since its hard. Trust me, i bothered to get this undeleted and afd'd just to be able to get this case through.--Striver 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. Members of royal families are noteworthy per se, without regard to achievement or obscurity. The prophet Muhammad's family rates the same treatment. There may be a case for merging many of the figures in his family tree, at least if not much more is known of some of the members such as this one, but the information should be retained somewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this individual seems notable enough to warrant having an article about her given commentary like this by a predominantly Islam-centric editor like User:Timothy Usher. This woman factored into events surrounding Muhammad's life. Netscott 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established. I don't see a reason to delete, and is notable enough for independent article.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - Notability quite clear. Citation links need improvement however. It may be necessary to go do library research. GRBerry 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Old people are often notable. -Ste|vertigo 22:44, 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 and redirect to God mode. Mailer Diablo 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Mode[edit]

Non-notable.

Google turns up 18 pages linking to www.godmodeonline.com, 391 containing the term godmodeonline.com, (mostly on forums, links lists, user profiles, blog comments, and livejournals), and 51 containing the phrase "God Mode Online". (Searching for just "God Mode" turns up mainly irrelevant sites, as might be expected.)

In addition, the article provides no proof of notability (that would meet the guidelines in WP:WEB or otherwise).

Since the article is a stub and is linked to from very few places (essentially only Keenspot and the List of webcomics, plus a few other trivial/user:/wikipedia: links), the impact of deleting it should also be minimal. makomk 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Redirect to Doom God mode, because that's where "iddqd" goes. Tevildo 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep The reason for keeping the article is actually in the nomination itself. It's on Keenspot, an independent for-profit syndicate for webcomics, which means it meets WP:WEB clause 3. (I won't budge on this issue, so express your concerns with a separate recommendation, not a comment to this one.) It should be renamed to God Mode (webcomic) though, since the term is far older than the comic itself. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it does get kept, I agree it definitely needs moving. Having two articles differing in capitalisation is bad enough, but since it appears the "God Mode" capitalisation is sometimes used in relation to the gaming term, and that's both older and more widely used, it's definitely a bad idea. (I spotted and corrected a link to the wrong "God Mode" article in a Doom-related article earlier when looking through "what links here".) - makomk 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be pointed out that the above keep is based on incomplete information. As described below, the creator of God Mode, Chris Cosby, is a co-founder of Keenspace; as such, its position in Keenspace specifically does not meet the third clause of WP:WEB, which requires that it be distributed through a site that is both "well known and independent of the creators." --Aquillion 20:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God mode - this site is not notable and having a redirect go somewhere else when there is an article differing only by capitalization doesn't make sense. BigDT 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per BigDT. Oldelpaso 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claims of notability in the article. Wickethewok 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to God mode per above. --Aquillion 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft Artw 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and super-strong redirect to god mode. -- Kicking222 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to God mode. ---Baba Louis 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per everybody. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote. Curiously, back when WP:WEB was being (re)written (back before webcomics dropped off the page), its "independent distributor" clause was there more or less for the express purpose of keeping Keenspot strips. Time goes on, huh? Nifboy 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable. God Mode has been published in print as a 32-page cover feature of a Free Comic Book Day issue (Comic Genesis 2006), with a circulation of tens of thousands of copies. Additionally, God Mode was created by Keenspot co-founder and Superosity and Sore Thumbs creator Chris Crosby, who many consider to be a notable figure in webcomics. Crosby pays Ryan Kerns a page rate to produce the comic as work-for hire, which is highly unusual and notable for a webcomic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.99.246 (talk • contribs) 22:03, July 5, 2006
  • Keep per Abe and 66.35.99.246. The comic meets the non-trivial publishing for webcomics, furthermore there has been a printed version, again meeting the requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep per 66.35.99.246. You can find some info on the "Comic Genesis: Generations 2006" sampler at the Keenspot online shop and there's an interview with Ryan Kerns here where he explains how Chris Crosby actually created the webcomic. Seems to meet the criteria for notability. - makomk 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to God mode. The webcomic is non-notable, and fails WP:WEB. Article has no reliable sources and my attempts to find any in my library have turned up nothing (although I've learned a lot about a vastly more notable yet still incredibly non-notable Ryan Kern who is president of the Monaco Air Duluth Airshow). The couple of people who believe Chris Crosby is a "notable figure" or that Keenspot is notable ought to consider mentioning this comic in either of those articles, as not every little webcomic related to those two topics has received sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. Like this minor webcomic, for example. -- Dragonfiend 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I (still) reckon it's probably essentially impossible to do what you're asking in terms of sources for any webcomic (even, say, Megatokyo) and any attempt to try will result in an outdated and incomplete article. In fact, the only webcomic article I've seen so far that achieved this is When I Am King, and it had severe problems (mainly the fact that it consisted mainly of quotes and provided next-to-no information about the webcomic), though those weren't entirely a result of this - and that was a comic that's no longer updated, apparently got a reasonable amount of media attention, and clearly meets WP:WEB for that reason. Most of the webcomic articles (even ones that clearly meet WP:WEB) don't stand a chance. You may well have a point about notability though; however it's somewhat debatable as to whether it meets WP:WEB criterion 3 (depends if Keenspot counts as "an online publisher" or whether it's more of an invitation-only webcomic community with its own private hosting service attached - it seems to be something of a hybrid AFAICT, which makes life a bit difficult - and there's the slight complication that it was apparently created by a Keenspot co-founder). This could be a bit tricky; maybe I should've started with something clearer-cut. - makomk 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding Megatokyo, it (like many other webcomics) easily meets our standards for verifiability and reliable sources -- the article already uses The New York Times as a source, and a quick look in my library shows other articles from The San Diego Union-Tribune, Publishers Weekly, South Bend Tribune, The Tennessean, etc. Regarding When I Am King, yes, it needs expansion; that's why I tagged it as a stub. Its importance, however, has been clearly established by reliable sources. This article, on the other hand, has no real claim of importance and no third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and therefore ought to be deleted. -- Dragonfiend 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Megatokyo uses the New York Times as a source for one small, minor part of the article (the bit about it requiring a certain amount of "obscure knowledge"); the rest of the article cannot be supported by information in the NYT article (or the Iowa State Daily one) and mainly seems to use megatokyo.com itself as a source (which is pretty much par for the course, unfortunately). Unless it's something like This Is Home, deleting webcomic articles on verifiability grounds is probably a bad idea - this is best decided on the basis of notability alone, if possible (and the article does have some issues there). - makomk 10:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry - had a slight confusion of the difference between policy (WP:V), guidelines (WP:WEB) and random essays that are neither (WP:N). It doesn't help that the guidelines seem to reflect actual practice in this area better than the policy does, and that the two apparently contradict each other in some situations. Thanks to Dragonfiend clearing the matter up. - makomk 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming that Chris Cosby was the person who created this comic, because Chris Cosby is a notable figure (co-founder of Keenspot is a notable achievement) meaning this comic would satisfy the WP:WEB requirement in that respect. I could be reading the article wrong, though. Xuanwu 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the three criteria of WP:WEB (1. multiple non-trvial sources, 2. Well-known awards, or 3. Well-known non-trivial distribution) support the idea that everything a "notable figure" does is somehow notable. Even the most notable people do non-notable things all the time. -- Dragonfiend 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since we agree the creator of the comic is notable, then I would also support a merge with the comic info going onto Chris Cosby's author page as an entry about other things he's done, besides helping to create Keenspot. But that's only if the comic itself is found to be NN by others. Xuanwu 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to god mode. --Ixfd64 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God mode per above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 11 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 03:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Sandbrook[edit]

A google search indicates 3 unique hits in regards to this name, it looks to me like this is a vanity add and not a notable person. --ImmortalGoddezz 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete patently non-notable, could be {{db-bio}}'d --IslaySolomon 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • p>There are many activists, young and old, from various backgrounds, countries and with various beliefs listed on wikipedia. Why not this one also?

    User: Vegano 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought that this was an interesting history from a politically involved person, and is important to anyone researching such issues as animal rights, esp in New Zeland. It would seem inappropriate to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.153.4 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-05 16:03:21
  • The article cites no sources at all, and provides no evidence that this person satisfies any of the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several external hyperlinks have been added to the article. These do not constitute sources, for the simple reason that the articles linked to make no mention whatever of the person who is the subject of this article. The article remains completely unverifiable. Uncle G 11:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm guessing Kali wrote the article? In any event, very non-notable. — Tapir Terrific 16:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am interested in any activists or people who are working for social change or for something other than there own personal gain, be it animal rights, anti-war, environmentalism or any other cause. This is not a broad article, no, but I find it far more interesting than the Immortal Goddess and her fraternity. Just personal opinion of a regular wikipedia visitor. User: ladyluck7 20:02 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO (and apparently WP:VAIN). No indication of any notability, no matter who may be "interested in" the topic on which this person is an activist. WP:NOT a soapbox. There's no assertion in the article that this person has done anything encyclopedic even if it could be verified; attending protests and moving in with another activist aren't noteworthy. Barno 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, well I've just found this article about myself. No I didn't write it, I'm sure no one is that self-interested! A friend of mine wrote this. Yeah, ok, my life's not of any great "notability" (yet), but I don't appreciate the not so nice comments here. People need to lighten up. I don't mind if this is deleted, it was a bit of a laugh, I'm not really fussed. But I do find it amazing how people spend so much time on this site, picking at and commenting on other articles. If you know the codes and criteria of a site I think that's a bit sad, yeah it's a handy site, but living your life in front of a computer is never a good thing! (Kali-bo-bali 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • I find your comment a little hypocritical, since you call out people for not being nice yet you then try to slam them for spending too much time on the computer, and call them sad. --ColourBurst 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'm sorry but I have to say! Who's talking about a "vanity add," vanity? You named yourself "Immortal Goddess" for cryin out loud!! Does anyone else find that just a tad hypocritical? haha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kali-bo-bali (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-bio}}; attending several anti-fur demonstrations and being a vegan is hardly a claim to fame. Kali, people are not personally attacking you - they simply disagree with your article being included into Wikipedia under the current editorial and inclusion guidelines. RidG Talk/Contributions 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, WP:BIO and WP:VAIN (even if not by the subject herself, but a friend). {{db-bio}} seems applicable. (And for the record, I haven't seen any "not-so-nice comments" about the subject, just judgment passed on the article itself.) HumbleGod 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. Soliciting spare change on the other side of the world is not encyclopedic value on this side. Sorry. you're 'just another'. --DarkAudit 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid points made. Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound like I was "slamming" anybody, just suggesting more constructive uses of ones time. To each their own. The article was only a joke in the first place so no worries.

Sorry. you're 'just another'. --DarkAudit 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) - This one's a bit personal though? And also, I never claimed that attending protests was a "claim to fame." I don't mind people saying that they article isn't encyclopedic, but there's no need to get personal. Immortal Godezz, was just teasing you about your name, hence the "haha." Thanks for the message. (Kali-bo-bali 08:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, CSD A7. Article fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:BIO. --blue520 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a speedy as there are some claims of notability, but clearly fails WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 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 speedy delete. – Avi 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuko Ohigashi[edit]

Musician whose only assertion of notability is "known for her compositions and talent in music." No works, performances, etc... mentioned. That is an assertion, but not in my eyes good enough to keep. Maybe the folks here can make the article better though. GRBerry 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added two sources of information about artist. Still may not meet WP:MUSIC, but in its current form it definatly does not. - no vote currently --Gay Cdn 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for adding those. To my eyes, doesn't look to meet WP:MUSIC yet. GRBerry 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 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 Eluchil404 00:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saker Baptist College[edit]

Not notable, unverifiable. Plinky 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:AGF and I'm not trying to be un-WP:CIVIL, but 1 minute on Google verified this: [54]. Please do at least a cursory investigation before nominating an article for deletion. Article could certainly use an edit... but it is verifiable and considering the fact that colleges always get kept on Wikipedia, it is notable as well.--Isotope23 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It actually seems to be a secondary school that has "college" in its name?--Nick Y. 21:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common naming convention outside of the US, from what I understand. HumbleGod 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and we seem to keep every secondary and nearly every primary school that comes to AfD as well.--Isotope23 12:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fits standard WP criteria, even if I'm personally iffy about keeping secondary schools. HumbleGod 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Could clearly get better, but I'd rather have a poor quality article about a school in West Africa than one in the U.S - this contributes to fighting systemic bias. And much as I disagree with the common belief that secondary schools are notable, it does exist. Per this link, one of the first two secondary schools for girls in Cameroon, which makes it more notable than at least 95% of all secondary schools. GRBerry 02:58, 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 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Cottage Toys[edit]

non notable advert Dweller 15:00, 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 03:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project 922[edit]

This page contains no useful information not already addressed by Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I propose the page should be deleted and, if necessary, its sole link (to the Central Intelligence Agency) be added to the list of references in the Iraq & WMD article. die Baumfabrik 15:09, 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 the band, delete the singer. – Avi 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paramore, Hayley Williams, Hayley williams[edit]

Delete per WP:MUSIC - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominated for all three. --Gay Cdn 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band's first album is for sale at major retailers like BestBuy and Amazon. In addition I found third party reviews [[55]], [[56]] of the first album and confirmed that they are going to be on the Vans_Warped_Tour as well. Their label is an indy but did produce a couple of Fall_Out_Boy albums as well as Less Than Jake which are pretty notable. I guess they don't technically meet all the parts of WP:MUSIC but IMO it is a guideline for a reason. DrunkenSmurf 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Do you think that the article on the lead singer should be deleted? The band's possible notability does not mean its members are independently notable. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thats a fair question. To be honest, while I'm solid on my opinion of keep for the band, I'm having a tough time deciding on the singer. I could be swayed either way I guess. DrunkenSmurf 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep on the band. Delete on Haley Williams and Haley williams. The band is reasonably notable for the time being. The lead singer is not independently notable enoguh now.--Nick Y. 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep on all. We do have an article on Flyleaf's lead singer Lacey Mosley, no? ~Chris (talk/e@) 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The existence of a Lacey Mosley article does not entail that the Hayley Williams article should remain. If they are actually equally notable, then it is possible both should be deleted. If at some point in the future Lacey Mosley is deleted, are we to then immediately delete this one? —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've redirected Hayley williams to Hayley Williams. If the result is keep, the redirect will be fine, if it gets deleted, then the redirect can be speedied under R1. --Zoz (t) 13:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the singer. Weak keep the band. Band has a song on "companion" album to the soundtrack of a major film, and a song in a major computer game. 1 million Ghits. If not now, it appears they may become increasingly notable. The singer is only notable specifically as part of the band's success, not independently, and does not warrant a separate article. I would suggest merging, except the singer article has no sources whatsoever and vague statements like "After watching and waiting patiently, the two invited Hayley". —Centrx→talk • 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the band. Per the WP:MUSIC, this band has been on national and international tours, as well as been in rotation on FUSE, which should be considered a major music (although not radio) network. -Nianmi • 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the band, Delete the lead singer. Same reasons as Nianmi. --The Local Village Idiot 18:48, 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. – Avi 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of war crimes allegations[edit]

User:Philip Baird Shearer tagged it for speedy deletion as a POV fork, which isn't a CSD. I am transferring here. I also think it is worth a delete, as it appears to be speculative listcruft and violates WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Listcruft as nom. Also blatently POV. If ever completed a list of every alleged warcrime in human history would be enromous and completely in violation of WP:NOT. --IslaySolomon 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,This page is a WP:POVFORK created because of a dissagreement on Talk:List of war crimes over the contents of List of war crimes page. Even if there is eventually a consensus to create such a page it does not exist yet and I for one would oppose its creation because of the NPOV problems that alleged lists create. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This was made because the current list at: List of war crimes is where the allegations against the Iraq War was originally posted. The Iraq War portion was moved their because allegations should not be in the other list, because a list of war crimes is different from a list of alleged war crimes. The arguement posed for not moving it however is that most war crimes are not prosecuted and so its ok to put allegations into the list. Jsut some background for everyone. I am not gonig to vote however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Delete (but not Merge). I created this page as a home for content we felt did not belong on List of war crimes. People who want the content moved back to List of war crimes have nominated this page for deletion. I have no particularly strong position on whether alleged war crimes are moved here or are deleted outright-- but I do want to avoid anyone misinterpreting the deletion of this page as somehow indicating a consensus that the content should be moved back to List of war crimes. I would ask therefore that if voters DO feel the content should be moved back, that they explicitly say so by voting Merge. A Delete vote alone would indicate that the content should be deleted, not moved back to List of war crimes. --Alecmconroy 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alecmconroy you did not move anything you cut and pasted information out of the List of war crimes creating a NPOV-fork. That cut from the "list of war crimes" has been reverted several times and is currently under discussion on Talk:list of war crimes. The building of a consensus to delete or not to delete the page titled List of war crimes allegations should remain the focus of this AFD page. What should or should not be deleted from or included in the List of war crimes should if there is a lack of consensus be talked through on the Talk:List of war crimes (not here) until a consensus is reached. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, I cut it from one and pasted it to another. That's what I meant by move, but I'm guessing you're saying "move" should be use to describe using the button at the top of the page? If so, I apologize if anyone was confused. --Alecmconroy 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I originally said I wasnt gonig to vote because I did not care of the status on the article, however the content should be deleted, not merged back into the old article. Its not appropriate for the whole article as its just random peoples opinions on if the contents are a war crime or not, not a courts opinion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accusations and allegations, if held by a significant minority or even majority, belong in subject specific articles. In the content so far, that would be the article on the Iraq War. Lists should be limited to established items - for crimes that means one that have already received legal determinations by the required tribunal. The list this was forked from has value in letting readers compare standards over time. This forked article fails WP:NPOV and will do so forever. In the current form it also fails WP:NOR. GRBerry 18:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only obviously inherently capable of ridiculous length, but also unverifiable. What is an allegation? A case brought in the ICC? A communication to the Human Rights Committee? What I think about events? One of the allegations is simply 'Allegations of wilful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians' in Iraq for goodness' sake. SM247My Talk 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Bibigon 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for what belongs on this list. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 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 01:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PD Brew[edit]

This page is about a new way to drink beer that does not seem to have gained widespread acceptance and therefore is not sufficiently notable for inclusion RicDod 15:28, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Kitsis[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Claim to be a "chess proffessional" is unlikely, as subject is only 18 years old and is currently the 74th rated in the U.S. in that age group. A rating of 1831 is not high, even for an 18-year-old. Overall, that is probably not in the top 500 in the U.S. By comparison, notable chess players are usually of at least FIDE Master strength (2300) if not Grandmaster strength by age 18. Compare Hikaru Nakamura, also 18 years old but rated 2697. Quale 15:41, 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 03:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Bar[edit]

Contested prod. nn website, fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank 1.8 million. Delete Oldelpaso 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a real website and does have 4400+ members... problem is only way to prove it is for you to sign up which requires a @kent.ac.uk e-mail address... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.196.245 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, but may be a good candidate for the future. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if you check http://www.kent.ac.uk/enterprise/newsletter.pdf (page 4) - It has confirmation of Steve Driver winning £20k for The Student Bar project.
    • It reads to me as if it's a loan and not prize money, but thanks for adding a source! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 16:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This site is a competitor to Facebook, but focuesses much more on groups / discussions which makes its very popular here at uni - 5000 students are members and people are posting in the groups every few seconds most of the time. It has also recieved a grant to expand to other unis over the summer, so I think it's going to be very popular soon. I think it should be kept! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.38.75.122 (talk • contribs) .
    • It receives a mention in the following press release - [[57]] and is clearly a grant rather then a loan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collism (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, topic of only local interest. "I think it's going to be very popular soon" is not a reason for keeping an article; WP:NOT a crystal ball. No citations of third-party coverage by reliable sources. Barno 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry is a University's media office not a reliable source? You think they make it up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.196.245 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - I've added a picture of the group listings showing how popular some of the groups are --AStaralfur 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User voted within 1 hr of account creation, all edits are related to this article. --WinHunter (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no official wikipedia reason to delete it. it would be hugely unfair to an already under-appreciated student body to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.82.215 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, no indication that anyone outside the University ever took note of this webforum. Dr Zak 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Students looking at the University of Kent's entry on Wikipedia, may see this entry. Those students may find the knowledge of the student bar useful, especially if they are having trouble making friends, as they can chat to people on the site. This site has become a resource to Kent students and as such, it's existance should be publicised.70.51.123.13 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm sure it's a big deal to the university, but no notability to an encyclopedia is stated or implied. Anonymous contributors here may want to read the various Wikipedia policies cited, to see why we're here. In particular, WP:WEB, and WP:NOT. Tychocat 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alexa in the 1.7m area, fails WP:WEB even if its KentUnixa ranking is 3. WP is not here to "publicise" anything. --DaveG12345 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does it not have as much right as being on WP as MySpace? [by Michael Cox 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.202.226 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - In regards to WP:WEB, "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]" - the site has been featured in a number of local newspapers (KM publications etc - http://www.kentonline.co.uk/km/). "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." - the site won a GRIST university funding award of GBP 20,000 which is significant. --195.38.74.88 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It's valid under the following criteria - "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]" Plus GRIST is independant. [Michael Cox 217.155.202.226 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete due to WP:WEB and WP:V. Good sources would be independent, i.e. not the university's press office. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you follow the kent online link aboe you will see that this is a countywide newspaper and not the 'university's press office' 70.51.155.188 01:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartchin (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Delete. This was nominated for CSD because "This is no such Group in Chassidic Judiasm; hoax" - CSD was obviously declined. The allegation is, basically, that this is a POV fork by a breakaway splinter sect from Bobov. And how do I know this? JJ, the Hasidic CSD nominator, told me, and I trust him. I have no independent way of confirming this. As a matter of fact, both the article and the AfD nomination constitute OR - there are simply no sources to be had. Google will show nothing to obscure splinter Hasidic groups, and all research is pointless - it could be as little as a dozen dudes in a basement synagogue calling themselves a movement. The article should be deleted because, at the very least, there is no way to confirm its content - it's impossible to make it meet WP:V. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The derogatory-intended nickname is actually usually used by followers of the Bobover Rebbe of 48 for the bobover rebbe of 45th. so therefore someone made a hoax-which-plays-upon-a-hoax and titled the 48 rebbe with the Kartchin Moniker...

I am very familiar with the chassidic world and I am 10000% confident of this hoax. it's not even a splinter group.. its like some people calling the satmar rebbe the flintsone rebbe and that getting a "NPOV" wikipage....

JJ211219 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't know what to do about this. We need more information. I do not understand in what way 'Kartchin' is a derogatory nickname. It is the name of a Polish (?) town and there does/did apparently exist a chassidus by that name. Just as that we have Zenta which is affiliated with Satmar. And Siget. Without independent and verifiable information, what can I say? --Daniel575 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look for 'Kartshin', also. --Daniel575 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without independent and verifiable information, what can anyone say! But I think you guys should be extra careful to translate Hebrew words on this page. Chassidus = Hasidic dynasty. This ain't Jewpedia lol - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avodas Hashem, Taharah and Kedusha are not valid reasons for delete, but we have no way of knowing. But what is vitally important is that Google:Kartchin returns this page and very little else. I agree this is a hoax spilling over from the Halberstam/Unger dispute in the Bobov succession, and agree this should be 'deleted. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either it is a hoax or it is non-notable. 100 followers in Borough Park is not enough for a wikipedia article. Jon513 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a hoax, and I agree with above opinion. If this was real then it just appears to be a non-notable group. Yanksox 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at all the above comments, shows how helpless Wikipedians are. Someone can be 10,000 percent sure; but still Wikipedians aren't convinced; they need more information. It seems to me that we have to have a Chelemer Asifah (a meeting of the wise men of Chelem) to determine if "Kartchin" is an entity. On a serious tone; how do you prove a negative? I'll try. Question number 1: Are there Kartchiner Chassidim? The answer is absolutely no. Question number 2: Is there a Kartchiner Rebbe? The answer is absolutely no. (If you want; you can write an article of the Kartchiner Rebbe who passed away over a hundred years ago). This whole thing reminds me of the newspaper heading "The President denies hitting his wife". The story goes that a news reporter asked the President if he hit his wife? for which the President answered "no"; now go prove that. Last for all who want to know how the "Kartchin hoax" (please don't make an article with this name) came to pass; I talk about it on the Bobov talk pages; if you would care to read. Issac 16:36, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Animation and its Influences on American Culture[edit]

Seems to be original research. Delete as per WP:NOR. Spondoolicks 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought --IslaySolomon 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. The lead pretty much gives it away that this is original research. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. And wouldn't we need to do this for many other countries as well, if it were allowed to stay? --ColourBurst 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete OR essay. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a well-written, carefully referenced article. However, it is not an encyclopedia entry. It would be quite suitable as an essay in a magazine (in print or on the Web), newspaper or similar publication. Regrettably, since it is not an encyclopedia article, we should delete it. Fg2 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions I understand that this is not the place to submit it. I approve of the deletion.--217.6.95.140 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Keqing Song[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 move to Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket and redirect deleted being that it is actually a mistake. – Avi 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fin-Folding Aerial Rocket[edit]

Erroneous name Thatnewguy 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This type of rocket is called a Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket, not a Fin-Folding Aerial Rocket. Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket redirects to the Rocket entry, which is appropriate. Fin-Folding Aerial Rocket, on the other hand, is literally a misnomer. Additionally, the article is completely United States-centric and seems to suggest that a generic technology is owned and defined and used solely by the United States. This technology is, in fact, widespread. It's even used in the nation possibly farthest away from the United States, South Africa, in the Rooivalk attack helicopter. Note the Rooivalk's armaments descriptions include Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets but links with the FFAR abbreviation, which links back to this page, the Fin-Folding Aerial Rockets. I propose we fold any useful information from Fin-Folding into the generic Rockets entry and other measures; delete Fin-Folding; and set FFAR to redirect to Rockets, which, of course, receives redirected inquiries for Folding-Fin. --Thatnewguy 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having the wrong title is not grounds for deletion. It is a reason to move the article to Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket. That the article discusses only the United States and not the rest of the world is also not grounds for deletion. It is simply cause to edit the article and improve it. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, in particular the parts that deal with the various kinds of problem articles. Uncle G 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and edit heavily to address the issues above. Artw 16:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a Move with some seriously heavy editing sounds like a better idea to me now. Thanks. --Thatnewguy 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and tag it for WP:NPOV. --ColourBurst 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Thatguy96 did the move Boldly, which I support. What is the argument supporting a NPOV tag? Georgewilliamherbert 06:56, 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 Keep. For starters, the "vote" was 4-2 Keep. However, only one of the Keep commentors made any real argument. But that argument is reasonable: she holds the all-time scoring record in a major sport of at a (famous) Division I school. But... the program only started the year she joined it, so how big an accomplishment is that? Nevertheless, she was a star (and later played professionaly for the Philadelphia Rage). She doesn't lack notabilily to the extent that it would be proper to go against the majority in closing, I don't think. Herostratus 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Morgan (basketball)[edit]

As an amateur player in a professional sport she clearly fails WP:BIO and fails the new guidelines being discussed. Her 'notability' is within her University, only, in any case. Delete. BlueValour 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Illustrates reasoning for inclusion, but just barely. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability established. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely successful Div 1 College Athlete. -- GWO
  • Comment - none of these statements are sourced so none can be relied upon. Without sourced figures notability cannot be established. BlueValour 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ranks number 1 on the school's all-time scoring list and a [two-time] First-Team all Big East selection are assertions of notability. She also particiated in International competition and [58] as Beth Cunningham. Eluchil404 00:54, 11 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 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Mills[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. University sports coaches are not inherently notable and this guy has no success to make him notable. Delete. BlueValour 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - sorry but where is that guideline? And why American football? If so, why not all sports head coaches at universities around the world? BlueValour 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is driven by consensus, not just guidelines. It is my feeling that there is a consensus that head coaches of this particular sport on this particular level merit inclusion. This particular AfD, however, may show otherwise. As far as other sports and other universities and other countries, that is not relevant to this particular AfD. We can, however, discuss those questions at another, more appropriate forum if you wish. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:13, 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. The evolution of the article and of the debate during the course of the AfD clearly favors the Keep point of view. Herostratus 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Pathetique[edit]

A "sub-variant of Punk Rock". The term gets 214 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites like Answers.com. (still, the fourth hit is a Wikipedia mirror...) The official site of Gary Bushell says: "Tongue in cheek, I dubbed them ‘punk pathetique’ along with equally crazy bands like Brighton’s Peter & The Test-Tube Babies and Geordie jesters The Toy Dolls." That doesn't mean the term should have its own Wikipedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs) 2006-07-05 16:13:44 Nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote for keeping it. It is a legitimate term that was used to describe humourous and raunchy Oi!/punk bands in 1980s Britain. Just because there isn't a lot about the term on the Internet doesn't mean it's not worthy of a Wikipedia article.Spylab 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]
    • If it is a concept that has not gained traction in the world outside of Garry Bushell, its creator, then it is original research, which is prohibited here. Wikipedia does not have the goal of documenting every single person's idiosyncratic inventions and beliefs. New concepts, such as new genres of music, must have demonstrably been accepted by the world at large outside of their creators and proponents. If you wish to demonstrate that the article is not original research, then please cite sources independent of Mr Bushell, explaining what the genre is, and thus demonstrate that this concept has become accepted by the world at large, outside of Mr Bushell. Currently, the article cites no sources at all, note. Uncle G 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Punk Pathetique had been invented in the mid nineties when zines & the internet were both running simultaneously, it would certainly recieve the apparently important google hits. However, it was invented in 1981 & didn't catch on. It however, did exist. There is the quote there from Max Splodge about it. There was a definite English Music Hall Comedy Dickensian Punk thing going on. It clearly begins with Johnny Rotten. The band Tenpole Tudor fits into this as well. As far as the whole thing about it being accepted by the world at large, many genres of Punk can be deleted for this reason, & i'm sure Punk could be deleted as well, based on similar ideas. Sean P. Aaberg 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, the concept of a musical genre and culture known as punk has gained widespread acceptance in the world at large, as the references and further reading in that article demonstrate. I didn't ask for "Google hits". I didn't mention Google at all. I asked for cited sources. I ask again for cited sources. The very problem with this article is that the concept invented by Mr Bushell (in your very words) "didn't catch on". Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. They way to demonstrate that it is not original research is to cite sources, not to argue a completely unrelated point about Google. Please cite sources. Uncle G 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Google results, WP:NOR and WP:N. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the Wikipedia definition of original research: "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."

    Whatever your views are against the Punk Pathetique article, the "original research" argument doesn't hold water at all. The concept of Punk Pathetique is neither new nor unpublished. It originated in the 1980s, and I've seen the term used in books, articles and record sleeves. The term was mostly used in Britain, but I didn't think a term had to be used worldwide (or more to the point, in the USA) to be worthy of a Wikipedia article.Spylab 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

  • Keep and move to Funny punk. Punk pathetique has always been obscure as hell, but more so since the mid-1980s, so it isn't likely to be found on the Internet. The reason why it's so rare is because the term "funny punk" replaced it twenty or so years ago. The general idea caught on under that name, so by the time the Internet rolled around in the 1990s, people were calling it funny punk. Funny punk is still a very obscure term, but I can find some citations for it, like this one. Ecto 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but a tripod member page isn't considered a valid source. Punkmorten 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, it's an article written by Donny the Punk, not the person who made that page. Didn't notice that, eh? Ecto 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punk Pathetique hasn't been replaced, it just isn't popular. Funny Punk exists as well, but it was never so defined as Punk Pathetique. Funny Punk includes bands like AOD & the Descendents yeah? That's the American hardcore version of the same thing. Black Flag could even be part of that at times, the Circle Jerks definitely. Anyhow, Punk Pathetique is real, & doesn't deserve deletion. Sean P. Aaberg
    • Source citations, to prove your claim that this is not original research, have been requested four times now. Please cite sources. You have still not demonstrated that this concept has been accepted by the world at large outside of Mr Bushell. Uncle G 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize that there was still a split between American funny punk and British punk pathetique. I stand corrected. I suppose we should start a funny punk article and leave the punk pathetique article as is. Ecto 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WesleyDodds 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! I give you an external citation. There you have it. Sean P. Aaberg
  • Delete. Still unsourced. And if your touchstone of Punk/Music Hall crossover is Tenpole Tudor and not Ian Dury, you almost certainly don't know what you're talking about. -- GWO
  • Great conversational attack there, Ian Dury is an obvious progenitor, but at that point he was old news. Things were moving a mile a minute at that point in terms of music scene factionalism. Oi! bands thought Sham was old news already when they were coming about. It was like one year before them or so. Anyhow. Sean P. Aaberg
  • From All Music Guide's review of Splodgenessabounds: "...music historians find their attention drawn to "We're Pathetique," Splodge's rallying call for a musical genre which precious few people even remember today. But the Punk Pathetique movement spawned not only Splodge, but also such joys as the Toy Dolls and Peter & the Test Tube Babies, and is still has an impact today." -- Dave Thompson, All Music Guide. Could somebody please include this little nugget as a reference? I can't access All Music Guide from this computer, so I can't give the address, but somebody could look it up. Ecto 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to say, I know for a fact this sub-genre existed. It was a UK-only phenomenon, so merging with something else like Funny Punk would be meaningless - that's an even more obscure term IMO than Pathetique. I think the article is waaaay off the mark mentioning Tenpole Tudor, and would be interested to know what they're doing there, but the rest of the material is correct. --DaveG12345 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An old Splodgenessabounds album I owned (the self-titled one) featured a crowd holding placards on the back, and one of them said "Vive La Pathetique". This wasn't just something Bushell said once and that was it, though he's one for taking credit for things in that way. --DaveG12345 05:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Added a further citation to the article. --DaveG12345 06:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, I added some more citations (including the ones noted above) and reshuffled it a bit. Feel free to change it around folks, but I hope this shows it's not a made up sub-genre, and that the stubby article can be allowed to expand naturally from now on. I may add some other quotes if I get the chance later. --DaveG12345 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definitely enough references now to dismiss calls to delete this article, although now the article needs to be cleaned up a bit to make it flow better.Spylab 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]
  • After much prodding, we finally have some source citations. Checking out those that I can, they do indeed show that this was a genre of music that was recognized by more than just Mr Bushell. Keep. Uncle G 19:51, 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 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foodpunt[edit]

WP:NFT. Weregerbil 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense --IslaySolomon 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please familiarize yourself with what constitutes patent nonsense, and please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article describes an action made up by some university students in the summer of 2006. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The article cites no sources and is clearly original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah, woah, keep your hair on Uncle G. I'd hardly call erroniously suggesting the use of a speedy delete "abuse". I wasn't actually adding a speedy tag. Since this doesn't meet the definition of nonsense then delete as "made up in school one day". I don't appreciate being talked down to like that. --IslaySolomon 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No-one "talked down". I quite politely asked you to familiarize yourself with what patent nonsene actually is, and not to abuse the speedy deletion criteria as you were doing. That you didn't add a tag to the article didn't mean that you weren't abusing the speedy deletion criteria. You wrote "Speedy Delete" above. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands, which tells you what you implied when you wrote that. Uncle G 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with appropriate speed, WP:NOR and WP:NFT. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, Uncle G this is a DISCUSSION page. I made my opinion known. Just because you disagree with me does not give you the right to accuse me of "abuse". As it happens I do believe that this article could constitute "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any use of it whatsoever" and therefore could conceivably be considered patent nonsense. That is my opinion and interpretation of the "patent nonsense" policy. If you disagree with that then feel free to say why but do not accuse me of wilfull ignorance or abuse.--IslaySolomon 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extending the patent nonsense criterion to cover things that are simply nonsense, not patent nonsense, is abuse of the criterion, plain and simple, as discussed in many places, including Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense#Misuse_of_this_criterion. Thinking that this article is "completely and irredeemably confused" is either based upon not actually reading the article at all (It's not confused at all, let alone irredemably so.) or based upon the desire to make the speedy deletion peg fit into the hole, however hard one has to hammer it in order to do so. That is abuse of the speedy deletion criteria, whether you wish it so or not. Speedy deletion is deliberately restrictive, and the purpose of the patent nonsense is to cover those articles that are utterly and permanently incomprehensible, not to cover articles that are, as this one is, readily comprehensible. Uncle G 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is this "abuse"? This is suppose to be a discussion. If I turn up and say "I think this constitutes patent nonsense" all you have to do is say "I disagree because..." that's how this thing works. There are debates here continuously as to whether articles meet various criteria for inclusion or deletion. What gives you the right to arbitrarily brand me "wrong"? --IslaySolomon 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've explained above exactly how it is abuse. Please read it again. Uncle G 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are approaching this situation in an extraordinarily rude, patronising and mean spirited way. I have made my opinion on this article heard and I stand firmly by it. How dare you lecture me as if i were a child. You are not omniscient and have no right whatsoever to simply dismiss my opinions out of hand. I did not nominate this article for deletion I simply added my opinion on the matter in good faith and did not expect a patronising scolding in return. Just because we disagree over the our interpretation of WP policy does not give you the right to accuse me of abuse. --IslaySolomon 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please address arguments, not people. Please also read wikt:abuse. Applying the patent nonsense criterion for the speedy deletion of something which is clearly not patent nonsense is abuse of that criterion. Uncle G 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have conceded right from the start that this is not a case of patent nonsense and changed my vote accordingly. Would it have killed you to have simply written "I disagree with Islay Solomon, this is not a case of patent nonsense" rather than resorting to a patronising lecture? If I had actually added a {{db-nonsense}} tag to the article then of course I would be abusing the patent nonsense criteria. But that is not what I did. I simply stated, in a debate initiated by "Weregerbil", that I thought a speedy nonsense delete was appropriate. As it happens I was wrong. Instead of conducting yourself in a civil manner you have deluged me with vile and sarcastic insinuations of stupidity and ignorance that I find extremely offensive. As far as I am concerned this matter is closed and I will not respond to further messages.--IslaySolomon 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I made no mention whatsoever of stupidity, as can be plainly seen above. You are taking offence at something that does not exist in what is actually written in front of you. Indeed, I have made no comment about you at all. Simply writing that it is not patent nonsense would not have encouraged you to stop abusing the criterion. Hence, I politely asked you to stop abusing it. That you found a polite request to stop abusing the patent nonsense criterion, followed by answers to your questions as to how you were abusing the criterion, to be offensive, is quite bizarre. I simply stated that I thought a speedy nonsense delete was appropriate. — which is exactly how you abused the patent nonsense criterion. There is no "nonsense" speedy deletion criterion, only patent nonsense. Extending it to cover nonsense is abusing the criterion. Uncle G 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good grief. It may not reach one editor's definition of nonsense, but it sure looks like nonsense to me. And I did not say patent nonsense. Throwing around allegations of abuse on a judgement call is also abuse of privledge. --DarkAudit 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling something that is an abuse an abuse is no more than clear writing. No privilege is involved. And please read the above discussion to see what is actually being discussed. It was not whether the article is nonsense. Uncle G 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course this is nonsense; Uncle G, you're seriously insisting on the crucial distinction between word sald (patent nonsense) and stuff made up in school one day? Yes, they're distinguishable, but so what? Neither belong in an encyclopedia, which is the real point of this discussion. Where the distinction matters, i.e., the tag used for deletion--well, Islay never used it. Uncle G, you owe Islay an apology. (and yes, I'm addressing arguments, not people, as your comments are hostile and ultimately unsupportable. Reimelt 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the distinction is between nonsense and patent nonsense. On the contrary: IslaySolomon did recommend speedy deletion. Xe wrote "Speedy delete". Please read familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands to see what that means. My comments were entirely polite. Uncle G 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said he never used the tag. Please familiarize yourself with the previous posting. (you see? It's really rather brusque to insist on the minutiae.) And yes, Uncle G, you were right in detail and Islay was wrong. No one is sayng otherwise. I'll stop posting here as this has gotten way out of hand and the contributors here are way too valuable (from what I can see) to belabor this. For my part, I just didn't want any hurt feelings over an entry that should be deleted. Reimelt 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am intrigued by your argument over a subjective term such as "nonsense." For instance, some of us would feel that the word nonsense may apply to a group of people who go on the internet to search for entries in a free online encyclopedia, even as this entry does not conern them in the least and can simply be ignored. Surely you all have better things to do with your time than decide what students, who are in some cases over 3,000 miles away, should be allowed to read online and laugh at. As far as the contention that this entry is "patent nonsense," this entry is decidedly coherent and while some "reasonable" people will undoubtedly find this entry useless, that certainly does not apply to the population as a whole. Although I myself am not a student at UW-Madison, I do have several friends there who have heard of and taken part in "foodpunting," in addition to people at my own school who I have seen doing it. If students at one of the most prestigious universities in America find this term relevant, why should it be taken down to satisfy someone who is so completely "sensible" that they have nothing better to do than scour the internet for terms that are objectionable to them.--Borat416
    • If ignoring the entry is the "sensical" (sensible?)thing to do, why are you so verbose? I for one couldn't care less what UW-Madison students (or anyone else) finds amusing; I do care what goes into Wikipedia. Moreover, "simply ignoring" it does not do anything for the finite storage capacity of wWikipedia's servers. Most important, if you have nothing to say re the article itself, don't post here. Also, please sign your comments. Reimelt 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reimelt, until wikipedia assigns you to some sort of policy-making position and adds you to the payroll, I am going under the assumption that they do not need you to monitor the storage capacity of their servers. Until then, you and everyone else has to understand that although you may not disagree with the content/relevance of every article on wikipedia, that does not mean that the article breaks some kind of rule. The article does not reflect a promotional intent, as I doubt "foodpunters" are trying to profit off of this activity. The author's argument that "foodpunting" is similar to "drunk dialing"(also a wikipedia entry) in that both are common activities performed by intoxicated persons is a valid one. As for your supposed right to determine what goes into a FREE online encyclopedia, if you are that controlling then I suggest you stop commenting on random articles, get a job, purchase your own encyclopedia, and then rip out the pages that you don't agree with.--Borat416
          • What on earth does wikipedia being free have to do with anything? "On the payroll" ? The whole point of Wikipedia is to have collaboration by volunteers. Moreover, where does anyone accuse the article's authors of trying to profit from it. Finally,"Drunk dialing" is verifiably notable, foodpunting is not. That's the the rule the article breaks: non-notability.
            As to the "get a job" sneer--comment on the arguments, not the people. In that vein, you do realize that this is the page where editors vote on articles for deletion, right? What's '"controlling" about participating in the collaborative process? I was adding my vote on the page for voting and then you insult me as controlling? What's that about?. On that note, I think I'll stop feeding the trolls for a while. Reimelt 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's right, I consider somebody who needs to put their two cents in on something that has little to no effect on them is indeed controlling. Get a life.--Borat416
        • Delete Just as anybody may edit, anybody may contribute to the consensus as to whether things should be kept. The article breaks several rules, policies and guidelines, such as WP:V (and WP:RS), WP:NFT, WP:NEO, etc. Wikipedia does not pay people to make these decisions - we contribute to these discussions because we want to keep it as reliable and encyclopaedic as we can. This is not a good article, plain and simple, and does not deserve to continue to be a waste of space. SM247My Talk 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even if you did have a consensus(which you do not, by the way), should every decision in the world be made by a bunch of internet weirdos with nothing better to do with their time? I'm sure that if you put your mind to it, you can help this planet in some greater way than getting "foodpunt" removed from wikipedia.--Borat416
            • Comment a) The consensus is clearly for deletion and b) this is hardly tantamount to the making of all decisions in the world, it is being made by people who have a vested interest in Wikipedia and know how policy works. I and others participating are not Internet wierdos (or we are and are proud of it) and I don't know why this is relevant to the discussion of this page's worth. SM247My Talk 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Neologism--Nick Y. 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read this article, I immediately thought of it as something like a drunk dial too. My friends and I have done this at my school too. We didnt call it this, but we will from now on. I've definitely foodpunted a fair share in my day. Let it stay.--Doubledare 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)DoubleDare[reply]
  • Delete - silly made up thing. Artw 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should NOT be deleted...as a recent college graduate, I participated in many foodpunts. It became a part of our vernacular. All slang words have to originate from somewhere and this one is no different. It would be a travesty to delete this word from wikipedia.

    • If it were really a widely-used neologism, try wikidictionary. But, of course, it is not a part of the vernacular of wikipedia users (or any other large group--including students) when it gets Zero hits on Google. None Nada. Reimelt 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, have any of the "haters" on this board even tried a "foodpunt," because it seems as if everyone who has tried punting food has liked it. After all, you can't spell foodpunt without F-U-N. ArtVandelay7 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Art Vandalay...to all the haters...next time you see some undesirable food in your fridge try to punt it out the back door...make sure you yell "foodpunt" and that you have a witness...then write about it on your blog so it gets some google hits and then you'll feel better about the foodpunt being on wikipedia. Then remember before Star Wars came out and there was no such thing as a light saver. Neologisms are okay...they even describe real things like computer nerds. Foodpunters don't hate computer nerds so computer nerds shouldn't hate foodpunters.

  • Comment Blogs are not a reliable source, so we would not feel better. I don't know why you assume we hate foodpunters - what we actually hate is unverified and non-notable vanity articles. Feel free to waste all the food you want, just don't advertise your phenomenon unless it actually merits a page. It's quite clear that for now it does not. SM247My Talk 21:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing this stuff on a website completely devoted to things that you could not find in a regular encyclopedia...words and phenomenons associated with vernacular, including neologisms and slang are a part of that. There is no reason to be on such a high horse about what does and doesn't belong in a bootleg encyclopedia. Some of the best stuff in here could only be found here. That's what makes it great...VIVA LA FOODPUNT!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 03:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Lowry[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as an amateur player in a professional sport. Delete. BlueValour 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing exceptional that merits inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one. Accomplishments not excptional enough. --DarkAudit 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 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 03:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Trial[edit]

Delete UE, cruft. I have a rule - if I cannot figure out what an article is about, I delete it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there might be a slightly stronger case for a keep with more context (it turns out this is about a level in a computer game). As it happens I think this recieves all the coverage it deserves here. --IslaySolomon 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other articles in the game have articles. This one needs expansion and attention to come up to their standards. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a single level in a game, and completely non-notable on its own. Perhaps a merge, if there's anything to be merged, but I haven't checked other Pikmin-related articles to find out. Either way, it in no way needs its own article. -- Kicking222 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say transwikify to gameinfo but there's not really enough there to be worth the effort. --ColourBurst 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. The main article Pikmin contains more information than this, and the see also link at the bottom links not to a individual article about one of the characters, but to the compendium Wildlife of Pikmin. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. --Zoz (t) 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't relevant └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I blanked the page to begin with earlier because it did not need to be removed from the Wistful Wild page. Not knowing how to summon that "Pending for Deletion" tab, I removed all the content and moved it back to where I originally put it, in the Wistful Wild article, as well as telling the user who removed it in the page history that it works better in that page because it refers to both the Impact Site AND the Final Trial, and thought it doesn't have enough info to be on its own article. Vidgmchtr 04:54, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Fish and Smegmer Kennington[edit]

Probable hoax. No IMdB entry for a "Larry Fish", and Google searches reveal only a Lawrence "Larry" Fish who is the CEO of Citizens' Financial Group (such as here). The article was originally decorated with an image of Richard Carney whose authenticity is also in dispute and who has a personal history extermely like this Fish fellow. Nominating for deletion as a hoax Tonywalton  | Talk 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD tag removed by Brutalforcekhamelion (the author) with the comment that the article is true and the image is "related" (with no explanation of how). I've reverted with a request to discuss it here. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Same applies to Smegmer Kennington, except this time he's used a picture of Steve Bond. Hilarious. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both. is patent nonsense to suggest that there are two or more people with the same bios but different names. --Tagishsimon (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Enough sockpuppetry. Invoking WP:SNOW. Proto///type 13:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce willis is a robot[edit]

Neologism, poor citations, lack of google hits, nonsense, NN, all 'keeps' below belong to contributors with few edits, which for me raises suspicions; a few of the keep contributions are nothing less than miraculous. --Tagishsimon (talk)

    • Comment Suspicions of what exactly? If you want to accuse me of sockpuppeting - then you need to go through the process properly. Although I did contact jcompton to find out the original source of the quote, I was by no means trying to persuade him to contribute or defend the article. I'd like to see the logs on wikipedia search, but I'm willing to bet that the term is searched for often enough that when people finally found it in wikipedia, they wanted to contribute or defend it. I believe your statement to be abrasive and totally uncalled for. I'm a newbie here, but I've tried to follow the wikipedia policies as best I can. --Terevos 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly even speedy? Artw 16:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come on, forums for references? —EdGl 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase is used enough online in the internet culture to warrant keeping the article. The phrase is by no means integrated into pop culture, therefore the lack of TV and movie references, hence the use of forums as references.goatwarrior
    • Note: This is goatwarrior's first and so far only contribution to wikipedia (contributions). We sure don't appreciate sock-puppets; nor would we like you to think we're fools. Au contrere. --Tagishsimon (talk)
      • Note: Let it be noted that I did not write the article, I simply added to the forum references.goatwarrior
        • No you didn't. You have not edited the Bruce willis is a robot article at all. One of the skills of sockpuppetry is remembering from which account you did what. And you've forgotten to do this. Now as it happens, I don't give a stuff whther you are or are not a sockpuppet, nor indeed do I care much what is the outcome of this discussion. But let's just for fun look at your posting history & that of Terevos. (Oh, and btw, you asked what led to the AFD. The use of a lower case w in willis led to my interest; You've still not rectified that point.)
        • Terevos arrives at wikipedia on the 5th July at15:18 (and is very welcome, as all new wikipedians are). He posts away on the BWIAR article until 16:38, when he takes a break.
        • Goatwarrior turns up at 17:38, now that the article if on AF, and lasts until 17:57, when, exhausted by the effort of contributing only to the BWIAR debate, he gives in and...
        • Terevos arrives back at 18.25 for the night shift.
        • Next day Goatwarrior is up first, at at 13:04 to 13:43, but has no stamina, and is replaced by
        • Terevos, weighing in from 14:01 to 15:02 before
        • Goatwarrior takes the baton at 15:22 & 16:45 and then its back to
        • Terevos, for the early evening shift of one post at 19:50, and wouldn't you know it
        • Goatwarrior reapprears for two posts at 20:06
          • So what you're saying is that terevos and are the same person who can deticate his entire workday and personal day to commenting on a wikipedia article. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of time. For the record, I did in fact edit the article. I'm sure the moderators can show that I came from a completely different IP than any of the other posters. (Sorry for the after the fact post, but I don't appreciate being accused of being a mule account.) --Goatwarrior 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NEO and probably WP:NFTDavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also might be worth noting that the 6th Sense debuted in 1999 and the forum references are from 7/02, 2/04, 2/04, and 2/05 so while it's not exactly crushing the internet it is certainly persisting. Whether you chose to delete the stub or not doesn't change the fact that is used. goatwarrior
  • Keep. Let me address the concerns that have been stated by the moderators.
    • 1. Neologism: Although it might be able to be classified as a neologism, it's more like a colloquialism. As stated by goatwarrior, the Sixth Sense was out in 1999 and it continues to be referenced throughout the years.
    • 2. Poor Citations: Yes, there are not very good citations, but I would argue that it's because of the nature of the phrase itself. It's used when in the middle of a conversation about a movie, you find out that someone hasn't seen it. That situation is very unlikely in even forums and would be totally inappropriate use of the phrase in any kind of website. It is not a net friendly phrase. However, wikipedia is not just about net friendly or written word friendly articles.
    • 3. Lack of google hits: please see number two.
    • 4. Nonsense: I may be biased because I'm the author, but I've tried to make the article as well written as I could. It was not written with any ulterior motive. I used the phrase in conversation with some people who didn't know what it mean - I said look it up on wikipedia, it's probably there. And lo and behold, it wasn't. So I wrote it hoping that others would contribute.
    • 5. As you can see by the forum post links, I did not make up the phrase, I'm simply reporting on it because it is a piece of history (ongoing).
    • 6. Keep in mind this is a colloquialism, so just because you may not have heard of it, doesn't mean it's not true or doesn't exist. How many of you use the term Ansible or have even heard that word before? I think that 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is used far more than that particular colloquialism. --Terevos 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added what to the best of my knowledge is the origin of the term to this article. (Disclaimer: I was not involved in the creation of the article, but my post was one of those cited as a reference to the term.) As for the "lack of search hits" on the term, that was actually a source of frustration to me as I tried to piece together where I'd read the thing in the first place, since the Old Man Murray article doesn't seem to be readily findable on a reasonable sort of "bruce willis robot" query. It was only by blind chance that a friend, who had heard my lament about how my Sixth Sense viewing experience was corrupted by this bizarre bluff spoiler, stumbled upon it and filled in that gap in my memory. So I would put to the "delete" crowd that the lack of ready explanations for the term is in fact a good reason to keep it available in WP. --Jason Compton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.46.179 (talk • contribs)
    • You've come to Wikipedia with the wrong idea of what this project is. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopaedia, not to be a repository of information that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. If there is a "lack of ready explanations" outside of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia may not have an article, since having "ready explanations" outside of Wikipedia is a fundamental requirement of everything here. The place to publish primary source material providing the original history of an idea is a scholarly journal, a magazine, or one's own web site, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Uncle G 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is a primary source for such terms as Sock Puppet and Protologism. --Goatwarrior 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong, as can be seen by the fact that you hyperlinked to Wiktionary, not to Wikipedia. Uncle G 12:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism, lack of sources other than forums. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a place to provide popularization for something like this. The proper route is: it becomes well known, it becomes documented, it gets a Wikipedia article. Tony Fox (speak) 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A neologism is something that's 'new'. This phrase is over 6 years old. This isn't popularization, I'm not trying to increase the use of the term, simply to report on what it is. It is well known by the people that use it. It is well documented on many forums and it will never be used in anything but forums because of the nature of the term. I'm not sure what the problem with the use of forums for colloquialisms is. Where else are you going to find phrases that people say to each other in that kind of context? --Terevos 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable phrase (neologism/protologism). Let it catch on first; document it after major newspapers start using it in movie reviews. Not when a handful of people use it in a chat forum. Weregerbil 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please note that Weregerbil does not seem to understand the proper usage of the term. Otherwise he would not have suggested to wait until newspapers start using it in movie reviews. The term is primarily a speech-only phrase. Proper usage of the term prohibits it from being used effectively in written form, which is why there is a small amount of net references to it. --Terevos 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weregerbil--Nick Y. 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weregerbil above Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After six years you can describe it as a failed neologism, but it's still nn. Everything that gets used a few times in a forum does not deserve an article. Fan-1967 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ansibles are a notable type of communication device used in a lot of fiction by credible SF writers (notably Card). This is an obscure and unverifiable phrase. Distinguish a coined word used widely to speak of a specific concept to a one-off phrase or inversion of an existing one, or merely adding a Latin root to an existing word. SM247My Talk 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because if I, a total non-entity, were to post this phrase once to any old random forum anywhere on the internet, I would be increasing this phrase's entire verifiable global circulation by about 10%, and I would not be diluting the notability of its pool of adopters one iota either. Which makes it an obscure nothing, in my book. Sorry. --DaveG12345 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I never heard of it. And in the case of neologisms, that should be enough. Danny Lilithborne 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Earlier in this talk session, I was accused of being a Sock Puppet. If you follow the link to the wikipedia article refering to internet sock puppet, you'll find no references other than a single usenet that references the term. Other than that, the article has no other reference to the term. Having been on the usenet for many years, I have never heard this term before, but it is nonetheless used by a handful of people on the net. I'm not saying by any means that we should delete the Sock Puppet article at all, I'm simply wondering how it slipped through the sensors. After all, according to weregerbil, if it were an actual term, shouldn't it be documented in a major news paper? Anyways, it's just something to think about. (For the record, I am not a "sock puppet".) --Goatwarrior 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sockpuppet is notable in that sense anyway because Wikipedia uses it. SM247My Talk 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't understand the point being made above per Goatwarrior. "Sock puppet" gets rather a lot of Google Group hits, and a glance at these shows these are most often in the internet sense of the phrase. "Bruce Willis is a robot" gets rather fewer hits. So the subject of the article under discussion is unnotable because, um, there's no evidence anyone's using it. There's lots of evidence that "sock puppet" is widely used in the internet sense, so it's notable. Even the LA Times has quoted the phrase in one of its stories. If the article doesn't reflect that fact with enough references, then feel free to clean it up. --DaveG12345 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The LA times article doesn't use the term sock puppet in the same way defined by the wikipedia article. The LA Times article is not refering to a mule account or anything internet related. I do plan on doing the proper research to legitimize the sock puppet article, I just have yet to find what this forum refers to as a legitimate reference for this term. As to your claim that sock puppet gets more hits than 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is because the term sock puppet is a multi-purpose term for more than just a mull account. Whereas the phrase 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is not static and it's usage may vary. For example, you can say, 'So in the end, Bruce Willis turned out to be a robot', 'So, anyways, Bruce Willis ended up being a robot', 'So it turned out that Bruce Willis was a robot'. The phrase being a partial sentence is bound by English tense and a variety of circumstances. --Goatwarrior 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Put sockpuppet on AFD if you wish. This discussion is about BWIAR. --Tagishsimon (talk)
          • Comment If I went out and marked all the neologism and primary source articles for AfD, that would be against the WP:POINT policy. The discussion MUST include talk about other articles and about the policies themselves if you really want this to be a fair proceeding on AfD. So the discussion is not just about BWIAR, but about all colloquialisms, since they rarely have a primary source outside of wikipedia. (See Badonkadonk and Sock_puppet_(internet) for starters. I can find a whole lot more if you'd like.) Personally, I've never heard the term 'Sock Puppet' used like the wikipedia community does - therefore, according to your interpretation of the neologism guidelines, I can justly put that up for AfD. But that would be disruptive and I would argue totally against what Wikipedia is all about. --Terevos 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment What can be called "primary source" articles is debatable, but if you went out and marked all the neologism entries for AfD, you'd find a whole bunch of people thanking you, and lining up to vote Delete. Fan-1967 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I agree with terevos. Other articles definitely come into question when applying the same rules and the same logic. In applying the same rules to this article as we do other articles, how can we ignore what else is out there? We don't live in a vacuum and we most certainly do not want to ignore how the wikipedia rule apply to other articles. A mass proposed deletion of a series of other articles is not the answer.--Goatwarrior 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weird, I came to wiki today to find out what the heck this even means - One of the guys at work used the phrase today and I didn't know what he was talking about. Now I know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatsicle (talk • contribs)
  • The article comprises an explanation of the usage of a phrase, coupled with a list of external links to people using it. There are no sources cited, and there's no indication that this phrase has been documented in any secondary source material anywhere, either in the article or in this AFD discussion. Searching, I can find no such secondary sources. This is first-instance, primary source, documentation of something that hasn't been documented anywhere outside of Wikipedia, and is original research. Wikipedia is not a primary source. The place for this sort of work is elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If that is seriously Wikipedia's official policy, there are a whole lot of articles that are currently in Wikipedia that are 1. Primary source and 2. Neologism. Shall I start putting them all up for AfD? No, because people look to Wikipedia for all kinds of information. Is it hurting anyone to have Ansible or Badonkadonk or Sock_puppet_(internet) on Wikipedia? Should those entries be in Wikipedia even though they are Neologisms and/or primary source articles? I would argue they should be in Wikipedia. The primary source thing is to prevent falsification, not to prevent colloquialisms from being entered into Wiki. --Terevos 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "primary source thing" is part of the fundamental goal of this project: to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Editors who believe that Wikipedia should be a primary source have come to the wrong project, and should look elsewhere for a project whose goals match theirs. This project's goal is to be an encyclopaedia. You'll also find that, in stark contrast to this article, there is secondary source material describing the concept of an ansible. There is certainly plenty of source material describing puppets made from socks (not least shelves full of children's activity books in bookshops). Articles on either subject can be written from sources. Articles on this subject cannot. Articles on this subject are original research. Your comparison is wholly flawed. Uncle G 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've read the Wikipedia guidelines on primary source. It doesn't apply to articles like this one. It's primarily referring to actual research on scientific data. Ansible is not a primary source article, you're right, but it is a neologism. Badonkadonk is both primary source and a neologism. And you're looking at the wrong Sock_puppet_(internet) article. The one I referred to is about a pseudonym account. That article is both a primary source and neologism. --Terevos 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I'm confused. You say you have read the policy (not guidelines) on primary sources? Then you will have read the section of WP:NOT policy that prohibits: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." Does the "defining terms" and "coining new words, etc." not apply here somehow? I rather think it does. The policy is in no way restricted merely to "research on scientific data". Sorry. --DaveG12345 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment The purpose of 'primary source' is to prevent unverifiable articles and disputes. As you can see from the multiple links given in the BWIAR article, they all use the phrase the same way. There is no disagreement on how the term can be used. Shall we start getting rid of all what you consider to be 'primary source' articles in Wikipedia? Maybe we could start with Sock_puppet_(internet) and Badonkadonk? Just because the article says 'References' doesn't mean that those are referring to 'reliable sources' as you define them. Again, please address how Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk are different than BWIAR. Why are those valid articles, but this one is not? And don't tell me to put them up for AfD, because that would be against WP:POINT. --Terevos 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Well, first of all, I'm glad you seem to have dropped the opinion that WP policy on primary sources doesn't apply to this article because that policy is restricted to "research on scientific data". That was my main concern here. I hope it's clear now that primary source policy is eminently applicable to this article.

                The difference I feel that exists between the current article and the others you cite is this: first, AfD is not cleanup. Second, I am confident that if I had the time to sit down and research either of the topics you name, I could come up with enough reliable third-party sources to satisfy any future, projected AfD for them. I base this view on the fact that those articles deal with subjects that, when all the evidence available to me now is weighed up, seem capable of demonstrating a usage outside of a handful of unreliable third party sources. BWIAR, on the other hand, does not fill me with such confidence. That's a judgement call that each WP editor here is making, including me, and including yourself. That's why those articles do not belong in AfD IMO - if they were placed here, editors would be mobilised to defend the articles, as editors are mobilised here to defend this one, and I feel sure the result would be a keep in those cases. That's all. My opinion is an opinion, but it is not one just plucked out of the air. If there was anything here, or anything "out there", that made me confident that BWIAR merited a WP article, then let me assure you that I would make that belief known here. --DaveG12345 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                • Comment So basically it doesn't come down to WP policies of whether something gets placed on AfD, it's more of just how the Wikipedia editors 'feel' about a particular article. If AfD is not about cleanup, then why was BWIAR placed in AfD immediately after its creation, rather than giving it some time for other contributors to add what is needed. In time if it couldn't comply with the complaints against it, then put it on AfD. It's not like its presence is harming Wikipedia or anyone else. --Terevos 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment Of course it comes down to WP policies, haven't I stated this clearly enough? " My opinion is an opinion, but it is not one just plucked out of the air." Please re-read my comments if in any further doubt. You have time in the five days of AfD to clean this up and convince us all that the BWIAR article does not constitute primary research of a neologism. Good luck with it, seriously. As to why this is in AfD, ask the nom. It certainly isn't here for any bad faith reason that I can see. I am merely dealing with this AfD now that it's here. As should we all. --DaveG12345 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment Yes, I have read your comments. And it appears that you are implementing the Wikipedia policies strictly here, but not for Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk and many many other Wikipedia articles. If it were true that Wiki does not accept colloquialisms and neologisms which are primary source on Wikipedia, there would be a whole lot less Wikipedia articles. So essentially, it's left to how you 'feel' about BWIAR as opposed to the other neologism/primary source wiki articles. Unless you truly believe that Sock Puppet, Badonkadonk, Corporatocracy, Prequel, Jumping the shark, Posterized, and Blaxploitation (just to name a few with very minimal effort) should all be deleted if they cannot provide primary sources outside of Wikipedia. --Terevos 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment Yes, what else can I do but implement WP policies strictly here in AfD? Other than go off and develop my own wikis elsewhere? Your argument now seems to be yawing round to imaginary questions of the "what would you do if X were AfDed" variety. I feel I have anticipated such a move, and made it clear what I would do in such a scenario. I would do exactly as I am doing now. I would evaluate the case on its own merits, then post my view, per WP policy. As would - I believe - everyone else. What more need anyone do? The article would stand or fall on its own merits. In all this time being spent debating the patently obvious, I personally can't help thinking the BWIAR article could be being properly sourced and cleaned up, assuming such a feat were humanly possible. --DaveG12345 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious nn, WP:NEO. Batmanand | Talk 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable phrase. However, I want to state that User:Goatwarrior should never have been accused of being a sock puppet after his original posting in this discussion [59], because at that time he was the only person recommending a Keep. Calling someone a sock puppet when there is only one posting from one account involved makes no sense because sockpuppetry on Wikipedia involves trying to mislead people into thinking that there are multiple supporters of a position. Don't bite the newcomers. --Metropolitan90 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that 'not notable' is not an official Wikipedia policy, but simply an opinion held by a number of AfD happy Wikipedians. --Terevos 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment However, WP:NOTA3 is policy, as is WP:V, and many view nn as a convenient extension of these policies when dealing with, for example, suspected neologisms. To quote from WP:NN: "Notability is sometimes used as a synonym for verifiability, although others disagree. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research". What exactly is "AfD happy" BTW? "Simply an opinion"? ;-) I personally prefer to use the policy of WP:AGF within AfD. --DaveG12345 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Wanna guess what I stuck up my butt today? 71.101.237.105 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's just gross. Or is that some kind of new idiom too, that means something besides (1) disparaging the forum in which it is used and (2) requesting a change of topic?
      • Comment at least I had the balls to sign my name. You didn't even have the balls to guess what I stuck up my butt today. Good man, you suck. 71.122.71.221 13:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment An IP address isn't a name. Fan-1967 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Sure it is. Or are you discriminating against my IP culture???? The good news is that we are an inclusive society, and to join, all you have to do is shove a household object up YOUR butt, too!!! Interested? 71.122.72.186 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; note that the only keep votes are anons and conveniently new users. --Tothebarricades 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So BWIAR is the canonical example of a white lie about a movie ending. It is an idiom, not a neologism; although some wikipedians do not want wikipedia to become a dictionary of idioms, the line here is blurry; I feel that a comparison to "ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US" would be more appropriate than a comparison to "sockpuppet" which surely predates the mid-nineties. Is that page subject to deletion? AYB explains an idiom in common use. Minitrue 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (new user due to previously being anonymous only; hell yeah I'm a sockpuppet -- you want my boss should find out I'm editing wikipedia on company time?)[reply]
    • Comment The AYB article includes such reliable third party sources as a wired.com article featuring the term in a non-trivial manner. Is there any equivalent verifiable third party source that cites BWIAR?--DaveG12345 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Good question. Wanna guess what I stuck up my butt the other day?? 71.101.143.118 14:27, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerican Empire[edit]

"Micronation" that does not meet the evolving standards at Category talk:Micronations or the web standards at WP:WEB. WP:NOT, official policy, says that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I think that includes things made up by a group of five year olds. From the article: "The Aerican Empire was founded on 8 May 1986 by a group of five-year old friends." "By high school, the Empire slowly abandoned most fictional elements and worked towards becoming a political entity rather than a hobby." GRBerry 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion - article fails to use reliable sources to establish notability. Impressive list of media coverage at the bottom is only to the paper's websites, not to actual articles, except for the two links that I've converted myself. GRBerry 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on fixing this. Most of these papers don't keep four-year archives online, only in paper, for which you can't blame us. If we just posted links to reprints on our website, that would look just as bad, wouldn't it? Timcrow
  • Even though it was creatd y a bunch of 5-year-olds, it has grown to one of the most legitamate micronations ever. Kitia 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kitka. It was founded by five year olds but today's it's an active group. I heard about them from their New York Times article -- that's major exposure and media presence. And I'm told that they just did a big national radio interview of some sort... Timcrow 3:52 EST, 5 July 2006
  • Strong Keep With all respect, GRBerry, I think you are seriously mis-understanding what is meant by "things made up in school one day." It does refer, of course, to things schoolkids make up--but it also implies that it subsequently gains no more notoriety beyond the schoolyard in which it is made up. It doesn't matter that the Aerican Empire was made up by schoolkids, it has since become quite a large phenomenon. Reimelt 20:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you show any citations documenting that they've actually done anything to provie a basis for claims of being "one of the most legitamate [sic] micronations", or one of the most influential? I haven't read all of the sources, but they seem to be "look at the silly people making up imaginary micronations", not "these alternative political structures are revolutionizing the way real people deal with their societies' needs". No vote, as this seems to be near the edge of notability. Barno 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue isn't whether they are revolutionizing anything, but whether the Aerican Empire is notable. The notability could come entirely from "look at these silly people"-type coverage. Who says notable things can't be silly? From what I can tell, the Aerican Empire happens to be embrace silliness--so what? Coverage in the New York Times, Houston Chronicle, lots of web hits--why is this controversial? Reimelt 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If something someone made up in school one day gets covered in the NYTimes and draws around 116,000 google hits, it's notable and worth an entry.[60] Vickser 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the article stands, the only link that is to an actual article, as opposed to the homepage of the relevant paper is the Boston Phoenix one. I live in Boston, and the Phoenix is tabloid quality. To boot I'm the person who converted that link to an article link. Here is the entire NY Times mention:
AERICAN EMPIRE: www.geocities.com /SouthBeach/Surf/6818/aerica.html Aerican, one of the more imaginative sites,
refers to itself as the Monty Python of micronationalism, and its inhabitants worship a being known as the Great Penguin.
The site warns its readers: Aerican places a high emphasis on silliness. People who cannot act silly are permitted
entry only on a limited basis. A smiley-face adorns the flag.
I remain unconvinced that this is in fact notable. I've just converted the generic NYTimes link to an article link. GRBerry 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point that the NYTimes reference is quite small, but it is still coverage in a national newspaper. The Phoenix may be tabloid quality, but it's still a substantial paper, as is the Houston Chronicle. The coverage of all three, combined with the high google hits and international nature of the Aerican Empire still makes me inclined to think it should stay. I'm almost tempted to move down to a Keep, but I really feel that articles of this type (explaining things that are important enough that you'll occasionally hear references to them, but not so important as you'd be inclined to use another source) are one of the things that make Wikipedia so great. Anyway, two substantial newspapers, one paper of record and over 100,000 google hits is notable enough for my tastes, so I'm sticking. Vickser 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a 'Citizen' of Aerica based in Australia, i believe that Aerica has every right to a page on Wikipedia. As a micronation - wether real or imagined - a reference within Wikipedia should exist simply to inform users that it exists. I personally use Wikipedia as my number one source of information for my work, and like doing a google search these days - if it doesnt come up, then it doesnt exist in the real or internet world. Similar pages (such as Flying Spagetti Monster) will assumedly remain if Aerica is removed. Does it hurt anyone if it stays? - Martin (not a wiki account holder)
  • For micronations, notability generally involves some impact by a micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it such as the Nation of Pogo (AfD discussion), or setting up a club on a web site such as the Republic of Atlasia (AfD discussion), do not impact the real world at all. Whereas Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. Uncle G 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, this is kind of like saying that David Letterman isn't noteworthy because he didn't become a news anchor. Ignoring for the moment the huge confusion and disagreement about an acceptable definition of the word micronation, you're saying that an aspiring state is only noteworthy if they affect real-world change -- apparently ignoring that 1) it takes time to do so and 2) not every group aspires to that kind of thing. Sealand and Ladonia have made the mainstream news, but it's a matter of opinion if that exposure was of any value to them or covered them in any positive value beyond their being a novelty. The Empire has had *less* coverage, but it has still had international news coverage. This is not a state which has appeared only on Wiki, nor is it merely a website, and it has impacted the real world (albeit, only on a small scale so far). Timcrow

Aerica is both growing and powerful within the Micronational world. Though Aerica may not be as widely powerful as it once was, that doesn't mean it is subject to deletion! Pogs were once very popular and influential and they almost completely disappeared, yet they still have a wikipedia page. Aerica may not be an item but it surely diserves a page much more than some currently ignored toy. This is true not only for its past influence, but its current growth, power and love. Please do not delete this wikipage or you will have undone our only history on this site that was once small too. Please continue your endorsement of so little bandwidth into our nation of Aerica.hiho216 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I can see why some people would say that this isn't a notable entity, but from an alternate point of view, obviously the people who created the micronations article think that it's notable enough to mention in the article even though they don't cite many others of the "thousands" they say are out there. The people who frequent that article are the ones who know best what's notable, and if they think it's this one is noteworthy even while they call it "self-aggrandisement" then I'm inclined to go with their call. Plus, someone obviously a fair amount of work into getting some actual content up there quickly -- this isn't just a ten-year-old kid writing about his hobby during a five-minute break from cleaning his room. --Archmage2001 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It reads like a random Geocities web page about a toy collection. You might as well treat the Strong Bad article as one about an actual human being. Unless it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards and put into context, I see no reason to keep it. --DMAJohnson 02:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a member of the Empire and, being biased, don't feel able to ethically vote, but I did want to just pipe up about the Category talk:Micronations criteria. 1) The Empire's existence is clearly cited by more than 5 offline sources (not including reprints of the NYT article). 2) This material has come to the attention of people in more than 1000 people in America, Canada, Israel, Australia, and Portugal (based on known circulation values of the newspapers involved). 3) Admittedly, it has not produced coins and passports, but this is by choice and not ommission -- we've never seen the point in producing these items before there's reasonable hope of them being worth the paper (or copper) they're printed on. You can't hold it against us that we don't want to waste our or anyone else's money on novelties. For what it's worth, we do produce clothes and mousepads and such through Cafepress which has sold several hundred USD worth of merch, we do have a limited range of actual medals which have been given out (The Order of the Tinfoil Halibut, for example -- it doesn't sound respectable, but it's a real-life medal), and some of those warhammer figures shown on the page have been produced and sold as collectibles (only in a small run because, after all, they're all individually hand-painted). I just hope that those who are voting pro-delete aren't doing so just because the organization appears silly; we're serious about what we do, we just laugh while we do it, and while I can't speak for anyone else, the Empire has played more of a part in my offline life than my online life for about seven years now. I also hope that the fact that I'm not a registered wiki user doesn't make my arguments carry any less weight; I love wiki and use it constantly, and just because I read rather than write isn't supposed to devalue my input in the community. --70.51.181.50 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all micronations. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate on why? --Timcrow 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Reimelt and Vickser. If the micronation is Notable then it can have an article. Just look at the References, However I do agree that the As a 'Citizen' of Aerica coments are invalid per WP:NOT that the article is needed to build notablility, It can saty on wikipedia becose of its prior notablity and interconection to the Micronation. .--E-Bod 05:13, 11 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The leading hotels of the world[edit]

Originally proded as balatant spam. Prod was removed (which is perfectly fine) so I am submitting this as an AfD. This group of hotels is not inline with WP:CORP and the content of the article is POV. Note that there are indeed a lot of google hits since the goal of that organisation is to market its members. Pascal.Tesson 17:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Basically just a marketing brochure for hotels. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - the only possible redirect I can think of might be five star hotel, so probably best to delete. SM247My Talk 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to be encyclopedic, rewrite and move to correct capitalization though. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 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 No consensus. While the original author (quite gamely) doesn't actually say "Keep", I would count his good-faith comments added to the others as being enough to nudge this article away from a consensus to delete. However, I have no prejudice against this article being re-AfDed in the near future if the concerns of the Delete voters are not met. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argo Tea[edit]

Delete WP:CORP. Restaurant chain with five locations total. Strong suspicion of vanity.- CrazyRussian talk/email 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding vanity, I am in no way associated with this company. Tony The Tiger 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too small for now to be a default keep and no assertion of intrinsic importance to some aspect of the culture of Chicagoland. No prejudice to eventual recreation if it grealt expands or there is something notable about it in the future, of course. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I trust Tony The Tiger's good faith here (although I am not quite as optomistic about the future of premium tea in the US). I am willing to give the article until the Fall to see what happens. If noting happens, I'd be all for deletion, but let's err on the side of cautious eventualism for now. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been following this article and was considering nominating it for AfD. As far as I can tell it fails WP:CORP. Yanksox 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it may be a non-trivial source, however, it's just a local tibit piece that doesn't have a higher merit for itself. For instance, a local fire that kills a person, will garner alot of local coverage. However, it most likely will not become a Wikipedia article. Yanksox 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose I can get the company to produce data for me that Argo Tea is the leading seller of loose leaf brewed tea in Chicago, Illinois or the Midwest. Given that tea is the 2nd most highly consumed beverage in the world (following water) would that suffice? Tony The Tiger 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wednesday, I was downtown. I spoke with the new store manager after seeing Youngamerican and Crzrussian add their support to Yanksox's objection. He said he would research things, but I am not sure how high a priority a wikipedia page is for them. Personally, it seems that they are Chicago's (and thus very likely Illinois' and the Midwest's) leading vendor of loose leaf brewed tea, which is the next wave in gourmet beverage if you ask me. Unfortunately, this is somewhat opinionated. Nonetheless, I think they are the leader in this type of gourmet tea. WP:BIO notes an alternate test of expandability (Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?). I think 18 months from now we will be looking back on the next sure thing saying wow we got this page started. I will begin to worry if they do not open store #5 in August and then the fall store in the burbs as anticipated. However, I think it is an interesting Chicagoland subject as noted by the numerous articles that talk about how they are impacting the beverage marketplace. Tony The Tiger 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The provided news source is not independent of the company, so fails WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT, future store openings, I don't know much about independent source info. WRT awards and sales, I have begun searching for independent source info. Online there seem to be several beverage industry info sources: Beverage World Magazine, American Beverage Association, The Beverage Network, and Beverage Digest Online. I can not even find stats for tea sales online other than a reference to Snapple as the #3 tea seller. I find references to Ready To Drink (RTD) tea, and organic teas as well as loose leaf teas. However, nothing shows how things stack up nationally. Regional stats are probably impossible to find by a non-subscriber of the Beverage Digest Fact Book. Tony The Tiger 19:18, 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, after rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabba (band)[edit]

Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria on any counts. No albums for sale that I can see, no verifiable tour info (though originally I thought I had found tour info, it was in fact for another tribute band called "Gabba Gabba Hey"), and I can't see anything that meets other criteria. I suggest Delete, though if this is kept the historical section needs to be rewritten as it is lifted from their MySpace page.--Isotope23 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per note from originator, this is not the same text as the MySpace page... either I was mistaken or the MySpace page changed... regardless, I've strucken the text above.--Isotope23 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm probably reading too much into this " or the MySpace page changed ", but just for the record: I'm not linked in any way with this band. Actually, I even refrained from contacting them about notability references. (Because of their punk nature, I was afraid they may just barge in and make a mess). 62.147.37.227 10:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes... you are reading too much into it. I was not in any way accusing you of somehow orchestrating a change to Gabba's MySpace page so the text would be different than the article, thus rendering my comment incorrect without generating an edit log on the Wikipedia article. That would be a bit Machiavellian wouldn't it? Most likely scenario, I just made a mistake.--Isotope23 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, I was just being proactive in the full disclosure departement. As for the MySpace text: considering that any article dealing with them will quickly feature a memorable sentence such as "Stig Honda decided to fuse the disco pop of Abba and the punk rock of The Ramones", I guess that anyone is quite easily liable to get déjà vu over them, even when the sentences are different. -- 62.147.37.122 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view all the evidence below right now due to a webfilter issue, but I'm recinding my delete opinion for the time being until I can get to looking through it all in the next day or so.--Isotope23 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability Artw 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informations and references 62.147.112.67 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are listed by All Music. They have been signed and have released albums. Their main 1999 CD is out-of-print (thus no Amazon listing) and replaced with downloads at digital stores (such as ArtistDirect, iSound, FullDls, etc.)
      Update - Their out-of-print CD is replaced with free MP3s at their site, and free downloads at Torrent sites such as Mininova [61], Fulldls [62], etc. (as for ArtistDirect and iSound, they're actually just listing a database dump of the album, as "not available") -- 62.147.37.227 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discography of Gabba at All Music Guide (and various other sites using the same database, such as MMMatch or Yahoo Shopping)
    • Quoting site, CAPS and all: "GABBA's first album LEAVE STOCKHOLM has been warmly received across Europe, USA and Australia. GABBA have featured on Radio 1's EVENING SESSION, in MOJO magazine, on BBC TELEVISION and RADIO SCOTLAND... as well as a brief cameo in an upcoming FILM release." from [63]
    • Their CD reviewed in 2002 at Impact Press
  • I won't be able to get to this until this evening, but I will review the links above and if this meets WP:MUSIC I will withdraw the nomination.--Isotope23 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above infos 62.147.112.67 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Full disclosure: I had beefed up this stub a few days ago 62.147.36.9 12:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - About the note "historical section needs to be rewritten as it is lifted from their MySpace page": I'm the one who beefed that article and section, and I didn't cut-n-pasted nor "lifted" anything, it's my own writing summarizing what I read: I had even left a big hidden HTML comment explaining precisely that with my doubts about some points since they seem so prankish, so there's no copyvio there, there's only some additional research to be done to check if some if their bio data isn't playfully bogus. -- 62.147.112.67 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Assertions of notability are made, but none of them seem to be backed up. Can we get some links to press coverage, or at least something more specific than a list of media outlets? Having three albums is great, but two of them are not even available anymore and one is banned (for whatever reason), which does not indicate notability. The extent of the group's entry on allmusic.com is one album listing - no biography of any kind. IMO, the claim to notability is extremely weak here, especially given that this is only a tribute band. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search tip - Potentially useful to those who'd look this up: Google being very broken since their February 2006 "Big Daddy" update, replicating Google searches in http://www.altavista.com/ (same index as Yahoo) can yield additional results for non-mainstream topics like this. And since gabba (dab page) has so many more common usages, adding markers such as "abba ramones", "leave-stockholm", "stig honda", or "discopunk", helps filtering out results. -- 62.147.37.227 10:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a result of 62.147.37.227's excellent research, which establishes a sufficiently notable and verifiable public presence. Tyrenius 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Thanks. Since the stub's creator has been bitten out of Wikipedia, and I was the only other contributor, I had a duty to step in lest a valid article be killed through my inaction. -- 62.147.112.218 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, disco punk becomes increasingly notable and so does the band Gabba. - Face 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on my post above:
    About 199,000 Google results for "disco punk" (exact phrase). [66]
    About 46,100 Google results for "discopunk". [67]
    About 117,000 Alta Vista results for "disco punk" (exact phrase). [68]
    About 10,500 Alta Vista results for "discopunk". [69]
    Face 12:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postultimate informations - (also merged into the article) -- 62.147.112.218 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their single "Gabba Gabba" is allegedly on sale on the iTunes UK store (I can't check that, I don't have iTunes for browsing their catalog, or rather catalogue). That's the song they had contributed to an international tribute album to the late Joey Ramone (a 2001 CD, cf. article).
    • They had been reviewed in The Ramones UK Fan Club Newsletter (Number 24, February 2000) - A thumbnail screenshot of it, because the full image is broken at Archive.org
  • Meta-comment: jury duty (In a calm, relaxed tone.)
    • I'd like to say I find it rather appalling that people who voted "Delete" never came back to the debate, to confront the evidence about the article they had sentenced to death. And this, despite their being informed twice on their talk page about the detailled list of notability evidence gathered, and despite being wiki-active since.
    • I understand that an AFD isn't a vote per se, and how its reviewing process can strengthen an article -- but this works better, and doesn't give such a sorry spectacle, when an actual debate takes place.
    • Yet it's currently possible to just mass-slap AFD's and Delete's without any further involvement, personal responsibility, accountability, or moral sense of duty.
    • The results can then give the appearance of pathological witch-hunting or kangaroo court, rather than debate. As if a bunch of jurors would just say "Burn the witch" early in a trial, then leave the court before defense is pleaded. "It'll git a fair AFD, and then y'all can delete it."
    • As a rule of thumb, I think that someone who initiates or participates at some point in an AFD should have some sort of a "jury duty" to come back at least once on the 4th or 5th day, especially when he voted "Delete". He could then review evidences, update his vote or explain why he maintains it -- or at the very least counter-sign his vote with a second ~~~~, so as to act of his presence before the sentence he's in part responsible of.
    • As a rule of thumb, someone should thus not engage in more AFD debates than he can, or intend to, actually handle.
    • -- 62.147.37.122 11:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you post these comments on the AfD talk page. Tyrenius 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is any consolation, this is 99.99% certain to close on at least a no consensus which would default to keep. I don't know if you noticed, but I removed my deletion opinion several days ago pending investigation of the sources. After looking at the sources I'm not 100% convinced they meet WP:MUSIC, but they are very close to the line. It's close enough that I'm simply rendering no opinion either way. If there were no deletion opinions I would probably withdraw this AfD nomination. But as it stands I'm fairly certain this article will be kept, and with the improvements you've made to it over the past few days 62.147.37.122 I think the article makes a stronger case towards WP:MUSIC now than the version that was there when I nominated it... and thanks for staying WP:CIVIL throughout the debate.--Isotope23 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this point I'd suggest that you please don't withdraw it, anyway: its being archived and referenced on the article's talk page should provide a valuable starting point for the many next AFD's I'm sure such article will go through again: I've merged all sources and references into the article, but we have here some additional angles of defense that can't be put into the article itself. And on an optimist note, it would also provide a useful starting point for mounting a request to undelete. -- 62.147.37.122 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the deletes which have not returned to comment on the mass of new information researched considerably weaken their voice in the debate, and could even be discounted for this reason.Tyrenius 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do share this opinion, but as far as I know it's just your opinion and mine: I mean, I don't remember anything in the AFD documentation that suggest, recommend, or prescribe treating votes in this fashion, to the admin who'll have the fatigue task of closing this debate. -- 62.147.37.122 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. It's not votes; it's a discussion, and if in a discussion someone makes a point which is then answered, and that first person remains silent, they have tacitly concurred. Tyrenius 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and codifying this would take away the admins' discretion upon closure. I think most admins look at what has transpired and if evidence was provided at some point that makes a case towards guidelines or invalidates an argument, they take that into consideration. Regardless of the outcome, hopefully the admin will tag the talk page with a banner showing this already underwent AfD and what the outcome was.--Isotope23 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging is a standard part of the procedure. There's a wide latitude of discretion. Tyrenius 23:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I didn't check what this page looked like before but they sure look notable now. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 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 both. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Toomey[edit]

non-notable company (fails WP:CORP) Ghits: [70] [71].

Also nominating:

as it is the non-notable website of this company. Only relevant Ghits are from the site itself and the site of the above company: [72]. No evidence of study provided. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on both, Anderson Toomey is definitely non-notable and while they might hope that Community in a Box will become notable, it certainly isn't now. --Vengeful Cynic 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 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 04:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Language Project[edit]

A litany of issues here. Vanity (the author is the site's founder). Notability (Google gives 79 unique results). Is a copy and paste of http://www.commonlanguageproject.net/?page_id=7 (not really an issue if the author is the site's founder though). Was also previously deleted (though that was as a PROD, so it's not a repost speedy candidate). But, mostly it's the notability that's very lacking. Metros232 17:56, 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 Eluchil404 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Higgins[edit]

Possible WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, WP:BIO

  • Weak keep. Sort of passes the professor test. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's active in NI, behind zero28.org, appears on local media talking about films and culture. AMe 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per youngamerican. Mystache 13:10, 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 redirect to Geography of Mexico. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Mexico[edit]

The subject is non-notable, and can comfortably be addressed in other articles. --Yath 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Merge with Mexico, Central America, or Americas (terminology). Subject is very important to Spanish-speakers in the Americas. --Wing Nut 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Keep" and "merge" are mutually exclusive options. Do you want this to remain a separate article, or have its content merged into the other articles? --Yath 18:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way is fine, as long as the content is not simply deleted. --Wing Nut 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. The title's not very searchable and a little confusing. I was concerned Mexico had been lost. --IslaySolomon 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and completely re-write because it's very unclear. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Geography of Mexico. My brief scans of both articles suggest that all info here is redundant to what's there. I checked, and some things do in fact link here; did not check to see if they had been added just recently. If Mexico gets lost again, use a divining rod to find it. Smerdis of Tlön 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Sandy 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Smerdis of Tlön. Barno 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. BryanG(talk) 05:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge per above. —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 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 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canalgavina[edit]

self promoting ... editor's only contribution ... possible WP:SPAM only external link is to own (foreign language) website DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 18:12, 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 Delete, only two delete votes, but apart from the prod removal, this seems to be a classic case of an "uncontroversial delete" that the prod process is originally developed for. I won't waste more AfD time by relisting this one. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealsea[edit]

Delete Ad for a non-notable bargain hunter site. Fails WP:WEB. Prod removed without notice Gwernol 18:25, 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 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immerge[edit]

Spam. Artw 18:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 18:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP - not quite as positive a failure of WP:SPAM. Not speediable - only potential category is A7, and that only applies to real people and groups, not to corporations. Tevildo 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 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 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoticdarkness/A History Of Homicide[edit]

Nonsense/no-context Artw 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete presumably an album tracklist but without context it is impossible to tell. Nothing links to it and google doesn't turn up anything relevant. --IslaySolomon 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the band, so... Punkmorten 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN -- Alias Flood 20:07, 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 with condolances to Aaronproot. Mailer Diablo 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Sigler[edit]

Hoax article/unverified/publicity: take your pick. Requests for verification have gone unanswered, even though there is an odd "death by elephant" claim in the article. The supposed death took place on May 12, 2006. Amazingly, Mr. Sigler managed to upload some more photos to the iStock site mentioned in the article [73] some 2 weeks after his own death. I am trying very hard to assume good faith with the creator of the article, but this is pushing it a bit. Joyous! | Talk 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise most sincerely with your recent loss and I am certain that all of your fellow editors will do the same but, when it comes to whether or not an article should be kept or deleted, we need to be objective which must be very difficult for someone in your unfortunate situation. I hope that this clarifies things a little for you. -- Alias Flood 18:23, 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 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSDL[edit]

Spam. Artw 19:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: spam and, from the way it's written, spam that's full of gristle and big white greasy bits. --die Baumfabrik 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Baumfabrik. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone comes up with WP:RS asserting notability. Eluchil404 01:51, 11 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 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creature breeder[edit]

New website with only 76 registered users. See WP:WEB. It looks pretty, though. Rklawton 19:14, 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 CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noga 'Putumee[edit]

A minor character in a novel. Prod added, and then removed, and then entire article reduced to a link to an entry in another wiki. Character appears to be extremely minor. Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The link leads to a Halo wiki that counts 64 articles and is stuffed full of Google ads. No thanks. RidG Talk/Contributions 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 17:35, 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 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lee (comic book creator)[edit]

Advert/Vanity KillerChihuahua?!? 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The contributions of the article's creator show an intention only to advertise and write vanity. Check out the history of Francis Lee. Someone also needs to delete the duplicate images uploaded by this editor. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Artw 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WAvegetarian; a shocking piece of vanity. Besides, everyone knows there's only one Francis Lee: the Bog-roll King. --die Baumfabrik 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD blanked by The Traveller - reverted. Tevildo 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Baumfabrik. Please, no more "boyhood dream" celebrations on WP, unless maybe jock-related and unusually notable. Hope the comics are better laid-out than this article. ;-) --DaveG12345 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE As this is supposed to be an open and free website designed to share information with the world One is forced to ask the question "Why are there people on this site who feel the need to submit pages for deletion and voice such petty and small minded comments..?" Could it be that these people can only raise the level of ther own fragile insecure egos by pulling down other people. Surely it is better to allow the inclusion of pages such as this and allow the visitors to the website the option of forming their own opinions about the page or indeed allow them the option to amend the page as they see fit rather than just delete it in such an extreme form of censorship. Anyone would think that this site is being operated by Fascists given the arbitrary way in which its administrators appear to be setting themselves up as gods with the power to tell people what to think whilst still purporting to be administering a "Free and Open" knowledge source.The Traveller—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Traveller (talk • contribs) 13:06, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KMLer[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted Justin 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page appears to be nothing more than an ad for a particular piece of commercial software. The entire content consists of a list of functionality and links to where the software can be purchsed.

  • Delete as this text has been lifted from here and falls foul of WP:COPY. If there is to be an article, let it be started from the ground up. -- Alias Flood 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COPY, SPAM, ETC. --die Baumfabrik 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per Justin. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 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 Redirect to Bone (comics) Eluchil404 01:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boneville[edit]

Content is duplicate information to Bone (comics), except that its poorly written, and seems to be more an editorial than an article. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect It is a valid search term, why not just redirect? —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above Artw 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I agree. What a crappy article. · rodii · 22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above -- Alias Flood 17:37, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myst: Аdventures in the Dungeon[edit]

Fictional, non-existing game. A number of pages related to the hoax game were deleted. This one was recreated and needs removal. The Brown Cow 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is actually a re-creation of a deleted page, then it's a Speedy G4. If not, then Strong Delete as hoax. Tevildo 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't find it in the deletion log, so delete per Tevildo. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 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 (CSD:A1 and CSD:A7) by Deckiller. Tevildo 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dark order[edit]

Fails WP:SET and qualifies as WP:VANITY. Self-promotion and was written by user Dark-order, apparently of The dark order --Valermos 20:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete freeweb vanity page. Highway Batman! 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't this be speedy deleted as {{db-bio}}? Otherwise, delete as vanity. RidG Talk/Contributions 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A1 - No context. Appropriate tag added. Might even scrape an A3. Tevildo 20:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy High School[edit]

Non-notable school Benji64 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is abundant precedent that (insert drum roll here) high schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. — RJH (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep majority of community recognises that these things are kept and AfDing them borders on futility. SM247My Talk 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment alright, i wasn't sure about the verdict on high schools, though i should note that just because they keep accumulating doesnt mean that the effort to purge them should not be made Benji64 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it's a total waste of everyone's time because it's doomed to failure does. Merchbow 08:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools merit articles Fg2 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave for now. Very, very short stub. I've marked as a stub. Article makes no assertion of notability, but is way too short to tell. I'm quite confident that the notability assertion at the time nominated "It became famous in 2001 after monsters from the basement stalked and killed three juniors." was completely false. I live in Boston, a bordering city, and that would have made the paper if true. GRBerry 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Merchbow 08:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now due to the past precedent, but the article is very short. If we can get an article on the school district I'll support a merge there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stuff precedent, nothing notable ever happened here. -- GWO
  • Delete nn school; and yes, I'll keep tilting at windmills...if all we did was blindly follow the first precedent we'd be living in caves, still owning slaves, etc..... Carlossuarez46 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comparing the inclusion of notable topics on Wikipedia to slavery is disgusting and offensive. Silensor 20:54, 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 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning Beaded Tapestries[edit]

This is a huge advertisement. It links directly to ebay, and looks like it was copied directly from ebay. Not an encyclopedia entry. I am also nominating Gorgeous beaded Hand Bags for the same reasons as stated above. (Similar advertisement and was written by the same author) --Valermos 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - obviously not encyclopedic, more like junk mail to me. I think this would be better off elsewhere. This is the first time I've participated in an AFD, is this formatted correct?? --Whithulme 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These probably qualify for Speedy Deletion, but I wasn't sure how to list them as such. To Whithulme: Voted, commented and signed... That's all you need :) --Valermos 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Both per nom. Fail WP:SPAM quite markedly. Not really speediable - only potential category is G3, and they've been put up to sell the product rather than to damage Wikipedia. Tevildo 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is it odd a new user votes in an AFD (Article for deletion)?? --Whithulme 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. AfD's aren't really _votes_ - the outcome doesn't depend on one side getting a majority. In a controversial AfD, the closing admin may decide to ignore or downgrade the opinions of new users, especially if they're suspected of being meatpuppets. However, in an uncontroversial case such as this, the history of a user isn't an issue. Tevildo 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since when did encyclopaedic entries say no checks or money orders thanks ! at the end ??? Fails WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kinda surprised there isnt a speedy deletion policy for such blatant spam. Resolute 01:52, 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 keep, as nobody wishes it to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Trombone Choir[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. Perhaps a trombone choir is uncommon enough that it doesn't have to have sold lots of records. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:03, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Это Мой Дом[edit]

Album of unclear notability. Not much beyond a track listing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Absolutely no notability of any kind established. Album by a non-notable artist (church?). I'd make a "crucify it" joke, but that might be a bit harsh. -- Kicking222 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like it might have potential, but needs a lot of work. Because it's not up to standards, delete.
  • Delete per Kicking222, or transwiki to the Russian Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible Keep Album has been made by what appears to be a notable church, WP:MUSIC states that bands are notable if one member was of something that was previously notable. It does meet policy somewhat, but a persuasive argument for deletion can be made. Yanksox 05:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My position basically is that this is a promotional article for a label-less album with a proselytic purpose. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:44, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hron[edit]

May have been locally significant but not enough to warrant an article. Dismas|(talk) 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems like this might have potential (sort of like a Matthew Shepard situation), but there's no mention of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonquière (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that his murder had a profound impact on Swedish society. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/1159/a/7706 Years after his death, people are still talking about it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Jonquière. The article needs to establish _why_ John's murder is significant. Tevildo 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This murder got a lot of attention when it happened and has continued to be referred to in the media. The article needs to be expanded, but it has some references, and I doubt anybody living in Sweden for the last 10 years would question the notability. up+land 07:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Killerman2 unilaterally removed the afd notice. I have re-added it. --Mais oui! 07:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This murder is famuos in heal Sweden. Killerman2 09:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor Wikinews. Might possible reconsider if more content is added. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- but mention the event in Crime in Sweden / Fred-Chess 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's likely to be in Crime in Sweden at some point, why not a redirect? John Broughton 20:51, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Oliver Hill[edit]

Distinctly non-notable politician. Survived an AfD in 2004 but has done nothing since. Delete. BlueValour 21:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete possible hoax; non-notable anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a hoax. I confirmed that he is running in the 2006 Congressional election. See the See also references in the article. Less icky than most other Florida politicians. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I gave in the 2004 vote. —Sesel 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Insert obvious personal attack on the politician here, but he ran for major political office and got on the ballot, so he has become notable. Sigh. Could become as notable as that guy in San Francisco who called himself Emperor of the U.S. and Mexico, but I doubt it. GRBerry 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He did not make the presidential ballot in any state. —Sesel 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I accept your assertion as true about the presidential ballot. He did however, qualify for the 2006 congressional ballot, which is a major political office. GRBerry 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Running as a very minor candidate for one of 435 seats is not a major political office. —Sesel 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not hugely notable, but not completely non-notable.—Pengo 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is a political person who ran/running for an office making him notable so why not keep him in.--Rhydd Meddwl 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could run for the Dáil next year (and actually appear on the final ballot) by getting 15 people to come to City Hall and endorse me. That would not make me notable. Someone who couldn't even get on the presidential ballot is not notable. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 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 I take it all back - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Express[edit]

Delete as WP:CRUFT, that is to say, I "do[] not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:FICT - a major element of the HP stories, and too long to be included in the main article. Tevildo 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to draw a sharp distinction between a major element in a story and a minor element in a major story. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable fictional train, featured prominently on the cover of the first book, article is sufficiently encyclopedic given the real world coverage, even though I actually don't give a damn about Harry Potter stuff. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not quite kruft. Artw 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I rather dislike Harry Potter, and even I think this isn't cruft. The Hogwarts Express is a regular element in the commercials and trailers for the films. The fact that I recognized it before even reading the article indicates to me that this is nowhere near crufty. Captainktainer * Talk 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Captainktainer expresses my sentiments exactly. Cruft refers to subject matter stuff-all people will be interested in because it is too narrow, hence the usual Wikincarnation of the term, 'fancruft'. This is well known enough to be kept, so it is not correct to call it cruft. SM247My Talk 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Thankfully, WP:CRUFT is without much weight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the notability of the subject extends outside of the fanbase. Yanksox 02:10, 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 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute Atheist[edit]

Originally PROD'd by 86.138.0.221, with explanation: was:

POV pushing, largely original research, Google search returns 316 results, most of which pertain to a 'resolute atheist' in an adjective sense rather than a specific ideology

The user subsequently removed the content for some unexplained reason. I reverted, keeping the PROD template in place. The user then posted the following on my talk page:

Over at Resolute Atheist you reverted my delete. Incredible, seriously incredible how much the Atheist race will look out for one another, I mean, just take a look at that page, take a look at my reasons for deleting it, it returns 316 google search results and about 3 relate to a specific ideology of a 'resolute atheist'. If this were a Theist pushing his own POV you would be screaming bloody murder to the Admins right now.
What good reason does that article have to remain?

I wasn't quite sure how to respond to such an odd and inflamatory rant. Suspecting possible insanity I thought this should be brought through for AfD instead. I have no particular preference as regarding deletion. Thank you. RJH (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Antitheism, perhaps after some editing to bring it closer to NPOV. I agree with the anonymous user described in the nomination that this isn't a generally-recognized term for this particular worldview - "Militant Atheist" is, and that takes us to the Antitheism article. Tevildo
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and a host of others. There are articles with stronger reasons for deletion... but not many. Captainktainer * Talk 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tevildo. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no meaningful content to merge. BigDT 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:SPAM, not POV or OR. I fear for the sanity of user:86.138.0.221. --die Baumfabrik 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can tell the information in the article is completely false or misguided. "Resolute" means "Firm or determined; unwavering.", however the article makes out resolute athiests to be anti-thiestic, which I don't believe is (necessarily) true. —Pengo 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without citations there isn't an alternative.--Richhoncho 18:08, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Schlosberg[edit]

self-proclaimed lack of notability, failing WP:MUSIC Dweller 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, because Wikipedia is the world's greatest encyclopedia, not the world's greatest non-encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevomatic (talk • contribs)
  • power has corrupted you, my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.89.196 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I have no power. If the community disagrees with me, the article will stay. However, the community also wrote and approved WP:MUSIC and this article blatantly fails the criteria given there. Please don't feel you've been targeted. You're clearly new to Wikipedia. Read the articles I put on your talk page and you'll get a better idea of what Wikipedia is about. And what is it not --Dweller 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SushiGeek 21:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Borderline A7 - considering the content, I suspect a hoax. Tevildo 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged -- article asserts that subject is "little-known". And I don't see any evidence that any of 75.3.89.196's comments have been deleted. NawlinWiki 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two personal attacks were deleted, namely 'why must you be such fgts' and 'enjoy mom's basement much?' SushiGeek 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- sorry. You were right to delete them. NawlinWiki 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an inclusionist. I don't want to see anything deleted in Wikipedia if information is lost. However, there is no proof beyond this Wiki entry that this person and their releases exist (I'm not always a believer in Google hits to establish notability, but in this case, there is nothing). Delete. Parsssseltongue 22:33, 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, this page was not rewritten. No prejudice against this article being re-created if the new article is of sufficient quality. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Jablon[edit]

Non-notable The Apprentice contestant. SushiGeek 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - per WP:BIO. She probably just scarpes: "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions", plus there is a precedent of other Apprentice contestants having their own articles. Google hits are mediocore [74] at best and I'm on the wrong side of the pond to judge "name recognition". --IslaySolomon 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IslaySolomon hit the nail on the head. Google hits notwithstanding (given their imperfect value), the article should be kept around. Strike that. Now that I think about it, the claim about her "short and oddly-shaped body," as well as the lack of any biographical data, indicates to me that this article is junk. She's notable, but nobody's going to step up to the plate to fix it, so Delete. Captainktainer * Talk 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Captainktainer's absolutely right. My "keep" is definately conditional on a rewrite, however "oddly shaped" Ms. Jablon may be. --IslaySolomon 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten as per WP:BLP. Very close to a speedy delete as attack page. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 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 nomination was delete. Proto///type 10:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Custom Computers[edit]

This is spam. Plus it has grocer's apostrophes. And it fails WP:CORP ($2.5m is a very small computer maker - my business unit, one of several in the firm, spends about twice that on hardware annually). Absent any credible evidence of significance, delete. And remove fomr the various articles to which it has been added; I don't think, for example, that Dell regard them as terribly high on the hit list of competitors. Do read this article and Ideal Life Settlements back to back for the full spam flavour. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Important addendum: See this link [75] from Seattle based search engine optimisation company Hay Meadows, and note that this article was created by User:HayMeadows, all of whose edits relate to subjects on the linked SEO examples page. This is SEO spam. Just zis Guy you know? 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Isn't "Greengrocer's apostrophe" the more usual term? :) Tevildo 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to have established a niche in the custom computer market. See http://www.silentpcreview.com/article248-page1.html as an example of independent coverage. "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't really think it's appropriate to criticise the grammar of an article on AfD. You could fix it yourself, but I suppose editing an article you put up for deletion is kind of silly. But criticising the grammar of an article / user's edits (and the creator of this article is actually a registered user) is not really considered kosher according to WP:CIVIL - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user is called HayMeadows; there is an SEO company by that name; the user's edits are all related to items on the "SEO examples" page of the SEO company's website. Just zis Guy you know? 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources available in the article, and it seems to have shown up on the radar more than initially indicated in the nom. Also, per CheNuevara please be civil; plenty of people have problems with grammar and spelling, and such things aren't very germane to a discussion of whether an article violates Wikipedia policy. Captainktainer * Talk 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person requesting deletion has business unit in same industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HayMeadows (talk • contribs)
    • Comment How exactly is that a reason to keep? Are you implying that JzG wants this deleted to get rid of evidence of competitors? Metros232 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd like to see some more notable/reliable sources if possible. The ones that exist right now are questionable to me in terms of "non-trivial." Metros232 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Was neutral on this but then GRBerry's links below surfaced showing this is spam. Metros232 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. $2.5 million for a reseller is minor-leagues, and coverage in minor trade publications isn't non-trivial. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. ---Baba Louis 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORP The company's products have certainly been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Reviewers in the custom computer space do not regurgitate press releases. I strongly considered buying a custom computer a few months ago, but eventually realized that I had more sense than money. Their target market is people who have more money than sense and lack the time/skills to build their own computer. Finding the best sources to cite will be a bear though, because while there are about 42,000 google hits on their name, there are only about 136 unique hits - so about 300 hits per domain... GRBerry 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's there on the seo-link-exchange list too, under "Build your own computers." I'm undecided about the PCC article, but the editor should be banned. · rodii · 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:SPAM & NN. Contrary to User:GRBerry and User:TruthbringerToronto, the http://www.silentpcreview.com/article248-page1.html reference (and another random choice, http://www.silentpcreview.com/article609-page1.html) appear authored by Devon Cooke, whose name links back to Puget; this doesn't seem a very independent source. SPCR is based in Vancouver, Puget in Seattle; forgive my ignorance on things Cascadian, but could the two organisations be related?--die Baumfabrik 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: SPCR and Puget are unrelated to the best of my knowledge. I am an avid reader of SPCR and poster to the SPCR forums. Also check [76] where Devon Cooke's name links to his email address at SPCR. I'm inclined to think that his name linking to Puget Systems is a bug in SPCR's backend. ~Chris (squirrels!!) 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, more rummaging around reveals his biog, a student in Vancouver. Must be a bug after all. Nevertheless, the article is still WP:NN. --die Baumfabrik 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not just SEO spam, but ridiculously obvious SEO spam, as a comparison of the contributions of the article creator HayMeadows (talk · contribs) and this website would show. Besides, $2.5 million for a reseller is minor-leagues. --Calton | Talk 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you, an expert on resellers? -CluePuppet 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well established and sourced. And it fails WP:CORP ($2.5m is a very small computer maker - my business unit, one of several in the firm, spends about twice that on hardware annually). Your business unit sounds really special. I don't see any mention of dollar amounts in WP:CORP. -CluePuppet 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the backing CluePuppet. Sockpuppet? I have no relationship with this user. Hay Meadows 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why was that guy a sockpuppet? Because he disagreed with you? I think his point is still valid. Where is revenue listed as a qualification in WP:CORP? -Advocron 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Users only edits are in AfD's and several talk pages. Interesting indeed. --Ragib 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is a reincarnation of MarkSteere (talk · contribs) -- whose only edits were to his self-authored vanity article and to relentlessly badgering anyone voting to delete/not undelete it. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing, but might as well be accurate about it. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as spam. --Ragib 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. --Pjacobi 22:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed some spammy text from the article. Please take a look at it now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Being reviewed by people whose job it is to review any company like yours in a field doesn't qualify as obscurity, but by the same token I don't see it as establishing notability either. I'd feel better about this company if they'd been covered in the mainstream media. What seems to be the nature of the author's contributions does not help much either. Could be swayed with further evidence but from what I can see there's not much reason to keep this listing. GassyGuy 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've looked at User:TruthbringerToronto's kindly efforts, but it's still an article about an NN company, and the links are still infotisements. --die Baumfabrik 11:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree. After looking at the updated article, I still feel it is non-notable as a company and the links used as references aren't independent, non-trivial links. Metros232 14:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider this to be SEO spam, vandalism. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SEO spam, NN, fails WP:CORP --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:48, 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 early close as this is SEO spam, which is vandalism and contra to policy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Life Settlements[edit]

Is there an echo in here? User:HayMeadows says that Puget Custom Computers is a United States computer hardware company; with a reputation for offering a high level of customer satisfaction for buyer's of desktops, laptops, video editing, and gaming computers. The company is based in Kent, Washington, and was founded in 2000 by its current owner and president, Jon Bach. Whereas Ideal Life Settlements is a United States Life Settlement company; with a reputation for offering a high level of customer satisfaction for those interested in selling their Life Insurance policy. The company is based in Wall, New Jersey, and was founded in 1996 by its current owner and president, Robert Taurosa.

For Puget we are told that Over the years, Puget Custom Computers has maintained excellent customer support ratings at places such as resellerratings.com. while in the case of Ideal, Over the years, Ideal Life Settlements has maintained excellent customer support ratings including being a member of the BBB since 2003, LISA Member, and NAIFA Member. Kill as spam. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. At least it's not "policy's". Tevildo 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First 50 google hits appear to be primarily directory entries. Didn't see a reliable source among them. 106 unique hits among 300 total isn't convincing evidence either. Note http://www.haymeadows.com is involved in SEO optimization and specifically references this company as a SEO client. Probable Spam, fails WP:CORP. GRBerry 03:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and does not meet WP:CORP; basically an advertisement. — ERcheck (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPAM, and in a rusty tin, too. Crikey! You've got to admire the balls of people like user:HayMeadows. --die Baumfabrik 04:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I have to shake my head at the ineptitude. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not just SEO spam, but ridiculously obvious SEO spam, as a comparison of the contributions of the article creator HayMeadows (talk · contribs) and this website would show. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 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 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Groove[edit]

Seemingly a non-notable wrestling organization: delete. (see also below nomination) —EdGl 21:35, 29 June 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, TigerShark 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing in the article to establish notability, AfD has apparently not prompted anyone to change this. Tevildo 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 22:17, 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 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hoy[edit]

Just a member of a wrestling organization that I put up for deletion as well (see above). Delete. —EdGl 21:38, 29 June 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, TigerShark 22:38, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parkhole[edit]

Neologism. Joyous! | Talk 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Steel 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I cant see any instances of this phrase being used anywhere. DrunkenSmurf 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I nominally believe in the presumption of innocence, any page that contains a section anything like 'Examples of usage' in relation to a word (particularly a neologism) is usually blatant vanispam for a bored person's idea. SM247My Talk 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, but I rather like the scatological flavour. --die Baumfabrik 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary def. (and Neologism) —Pengo 09:22, 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 04:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelvis Wesley[edit]

I'm not sure that a fanfic author is notable enough for inclusion here under WP:BIO. Joyous! | Talk 22:45, 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 nomination was Already deleted by Mailer diablo (though I came to the same conclusion). Deathphoenix ʕ 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Merholz[edit]

The suggested claim to fame is that Merholz "coined the term webblob", which is fine, except the source given is his own website. Nonsense such as "eats with his mouth open" has been removed from the article. RFerreira 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article was substantially vandalized prior to July 2, 2006. Please review the article history in full before commenting. RFerreira 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - nn Akradecki 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —EdGl 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I actually closed this as a CSD and deleted it, but when I went to unlink the deleted article through WhatLinksHere, I realized I made a mistake. This "blob" business is undetected vandalism!! He really lays a claim to coining "blog" as a contraction of "weblog" per [77], as referenced in Blog! That's notable! I have reverted the vandalism. My apologies... - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Perhaps that attribution should be removed from the Blog article as well. Merholz's own website cannot possibly be a neutral or reliable source. Is there a secondary source which can validate this claim? RFerreira 00:32, 4 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, TigerShark 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'coining' the term weblog 2 years too late is hardly a cause for notability. Artw 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the same as inventing the telephone in 1986. SM247My Talk 00:08, 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 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Express[edit]

Advertisment for store of dubious notability. Artw 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I love anime, but I can't see one store which has been around since 2004 being encyclopedically notable yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Steel 22:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unapologetically self-referential:"Our newest features...". "Anime Express has been up and running since December 2004." doubtful it could have become notable in a competetive market in that time. Google agrees with few relevent hits [78]. Pork and Ham canned for freshness. --IslaySolomon 22:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an advert. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's an advert --Kunzite 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'we' and 'our' are dead giveaways. - Wickning1 15:40, 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 Speedy redirect. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Monkey (tv series)[edit]

No verifiable content Parsssseltongue 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment The above is not MY vote, but the opinion of some in the community. I am actually refraining from voting on this one, so this is not an author's delete, nor am I withdrawing my nomination, merely bringing the discussion here. Parsssseltongue 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably best off discussing it here then. Artw 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No... the point of this AfD is to let the community decide on notability for the TV series separately from the club article. Parsssseltongue 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Monkey (TV series). Already covered in the "Remakes" section of that article. Tevildo 23:43, 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, and give a thumbs up to Eloquence! Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoAnarchy[edit]

Disclaimer: I co-founded this website, but did not create the article. While it may once have been notable, we're currently relaunching it as a wiki-only site (it was once a weblog), and I don't believe it meets WP:WEB at present.--Eloquence* 23:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And appropriate praise to Eloquence for their honesty and humility. Tevildo 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and praise (bet you've never seen that vote before) per Tevildo. Eloquent, indeed. -- Kicking222 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also commend Eloquence - for your integrity, I tip my hat. SM247My Talk 00:10, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21stCenturySuperfighters[edit]

Enthusiastically written but probably not wikiworthy article that basically just lists some recent fighter planes. Title is just silly. Artw 23:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to Operation Grapes of Wrath. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nabatiyeh attack on house[edit]

non-notable event which took place as part of Operation Grapes of Wrath. It might perhaps warrant a mention in the the article about the operation, but surely we can't have an encyclopedia article devoted to every single instance where a building was attacked as part of a military operation, or we'd end up with several thousand articles for every recent conflict. Isarig 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason presented here for the deletion does not exist in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That's why I ask for removing the tag from the article as it was used missused in this article. --Banzoo 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the deletion process. non-Notability is a very common reason for deletion, common enough that the Guide to deletions has a designated shorthand code for it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands Isarig 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet after revision of Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria that follows from the Non-notable the reason provided is not pertinent. --Banzoo 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet any of the 3 criteria listed in Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria, which is in any case just a proposal Isarig 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be kind by citing those reasons and showing where it does not meet the article.--Banzoo 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in this subject (eg. it is not well-known in a community); It is a stub rather than an expansion upon an established subject; There is no discussion on the article's talk page which establishes its importance. IOW, it fails each and every single one of the criteria defined by Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria, which is in any case just a proposal. Isarig 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive all newly created articles can meet those criteria. Maybe because it was tagged for deletion in less than an hour after the creation time. For the first reason (in importance criteria), that's POV judgement, and cannot be objectively shown I think because it didnt get enough time for anyone to show that nobody is interrested to this article. Maybe it could've be more reasonnable to put a merge tag instead, or in the worst case the proposed for deletion tag. That why I think that this tag may be caused by an early judgement. --Banzoo 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you belive something that is clearly wrong. As for alternate tags - I have no problem with merging the scant information in this article with the broader Operation Grapes of Wrath article, which is where I think this AfD is heading. I just don't think a non-notable attack that occured asd part of a larger military operation is worthy of an article, and expalined my reasoning. Can you shed some light on why you think this is a notable event? Isarig 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that the deletion tag is bit unjustified. That said, I'm not with meriging, maybe my idea was misrepresented, i was saying that other tags could've been more understandable than the deletion one. I support having a separate article for this one for the first reason that I was inspired by other wikipedia articles, and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so whenever someone would do a research it would find what ever was searching for. Even though, having an article devoted to every single instance where a building was attacked as part of a military operation seems reasonable for a good group of people, specially when considering that this instance resulted with a notable civilians cost. So maybe we'll end up with several thousand articles for every recent conflict but I dont see why this cannot be acceptable. After all, in my opinion Human loss during conflicts is not something to be neglected. --Banzoo 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. The fact that I'm willing to accept a merge does not mean that the AfD tag is unjustified. I have yet to see any evidence that having an article devoted to every single instance where a building was attacked as part of a military operation seems reasonable for a good group of people. Human cost as part of a conflict is obviously not somethign to be neglected - and it isn't. The Operation Grapes of Wrath already notes the number of civilain casualties in this conflict. Isarig 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When quoting, it wasn't my intention to upset anyone, just to clarify things. Does Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing fall in the same case as this article?--Banzoo 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is evidence that the Sbarro incident is notable - a google search for Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing yeilds over 20,000 hits. The event has several pages dedicated to it on the Israeli MFA web site, and was the subject of numerous articles in print -for example [79], [80]. The Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing is in the same class as Cave of the Patriarchs massacre - a terror attack on civilians, which gathered much public attention. Civilians dying in a war zone during a military conflict, tragic though it is, is simply not on the same footing. Isarig 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know that this is the way to measure notability. But since it was mentioned, what was the stats for the article on question? Military conflict? isn't it the case for that bombing that took place during the al aksa intifada (that's considered as a conflict as far as I know). And why an attack on a civilian building in nabatiyeh is not considered as a terror attack? --Banzoo 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath. Information should definately be retained but the article is very short and the title unsearchable. If a "history" section is added to Nabatiyeh (which is listed as needing a cleanup). Then a link should be put there. --IslaySolomon 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the above articles, not important enough for own article. SM247My Talk 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the article, it's only few hours old, and was flagged for deletion, it is still a stub, and need to be expanded, more research to be done. I found it complementary in a way to organize the Operation Grapes of Wrath article. --Banzoo 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I would like to suggest to postpone this deletion procedure, and give the article some time to grow since it was tagged right after creation. Afterwards, we may discuss the right action to do.--Banzoo 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath. Not important enough to stand on its own. If that article grows too big or becomes unbalanced by its presence the talk page there can decide to fork it out at a future date. GRBerry 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The nomination is too soon. CG 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand: I think it's worth to be expanded as it's not directly related to Qana shelling, however it's important imho to reference this event in the operation Operation Grapes of Wrath article. I recommend doing more research on the background of this attack, the names of victims, their ages... Both parties point of view should be noted. Other events of similar circumstances have been kept and expanded (pick one List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and all were under the Al-Aqsa intifada) so deleting this article will be a biased attitude. --SuperAriel 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is SuperAriel's first WP edit. Isarig 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no policy regarding new users forbidding them commenting on articles. Apparently some prefer digging backgrounds rather than providing arguments and logical answers to my comments. --SuperAriel 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no such policy. However, it is quite common for these "first edit" notices to be put up next to users whose first contribution is a vote on a disputed topic, for obvious reasons. Isarig 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious reasons?--SuperAriel 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCK Isarig 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think u should read it more carefully: "...if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia..." from here --SuperAriel 19:38, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kharitidi[edit]

It is a very short article providing little or no context — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoOdCoNtEnT (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. — Deckiller 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Weak keep per new findings. — Deckiller 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be enough context to me. Also, both her books are listed on amazon [81][82]. Which also lists reviews from the mainstream media including the LA Times [83]. --IslaySolomon 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep her books have reasonably high Amazon rank and are translated into multiple languages - Das weisse Land der Seele.,--- Círculo de Xamãs: Iniciação aos Segredos da Antiga Sabedoria Siberiana,--- La chamane blanche,--- Samarkand. Eine Reise in die Tiefen der Seele. Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This article does provide context and although it could be longer, is not the issue at which that criterion is directed. SM247My Talk 00:04, 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, with thanks to the members of this band for their honesty. No prejudice against the re-creation of this article if the band meets notability requirements in the future. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boru's Ghost[edit]

I'm a big fan of folk music, but based on the music guidelines, it doesn't look to me like these folks qualify as being sufficiently "notable" so as to have an article about them. I put a message about this (and other articles) on the original article creator's talk page over a month ago, but no additional information has been added. Crypticfirefly 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I am a member of the band Boru's Ghost. I am not the writer of the article here, nor did I have anything to do with it's writing.(We were extremly flattered to be included in the Wikipedia though.) After reading the guidelines for inclusion on notability, I agree that we do not meet them. However we are working on it. I also noticed that you did not include Howl-o for deletion based on their website being included in the article, and our website is also included in our article. Also, we are very proud of the fact that this past March, we were included in the line up at North Texas Irish Festival, one of the largest Irish festivals in the United States. Our new album, Rites of Passage, is now currently being played by several podcasts...and picked up by several more weekly. Our demo and a recording that we did on a compilation was reviewed by Modern Bard, if interested you can read an exerpt at modernbard.org/reviews/borusghostdemo.htm. We are also currently involved in the creation of a new association for those interested in Celtic hertiage, the Oklahoma Celtic Heritage Association. I realize that Wikipedia is an academic tool and not a promotional tool. I would also say that although Boru's Ghost does not meet the guidlines yet, we are well on our way. Thanks- Audra Boru's Ghost...audrasingsforyou@yahoo.com

    • Comment Thanks for your candour. I've noticed several incidents like this where the subject matter of the article has shown up to throw in their 2 bob's worth. It is a heartening trend. If you guys do make it, we'll undoubtedly be able to recreate your page. SM247My Talk 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 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 per CSD:A3 (no content other than templates). Stifle (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Gotti Full Time Hustlin'[edit]

Does get a few ghits (be careful which links you follow - pop-up city !!) but i do question the notability of the artist/album DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a bunch of these Yo Gotti album/tape articles, one that matches this one in "content" is Yo Gotti Life (completely blank save an infobox). Main thing is, all of them are mistitled (they start Yo Gotti... rather than end ... (Yo Gotti album)). The rest of the articles contain a track listing only (Yo Gotti Back 2 Da Basics, Yo Gotti Shop Open, Yo Gotti I Told U So). I'm not sure about non-notability (this album up for AfD is available at amazon for example), but the mistitling is probably not helping (actual title of this album is just Full Time Hustlin' , for example - you get more Ghits with that). I suggest this lot be renamed to ... (Yo Gotti album) format and links at Yo Gotti be fixed as appropriate. As to what to do with completely blank album articles like this one and Yo Gotti Life, not sure. --DaveG12345 01:00, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton Toughie[edit]

Fails most all criteria for inclusion. Amonst the failures: notability, verfication, neologism, vanity, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Teke 00:00, 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 by Ulayiti. Yanksox 05:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Larios[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. See also J-Throez, which appears to be about the same guy. --Carnildo 00:19, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_5&oldid=1081095976"