Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noridasu[edit]

A manga from a non-notable author that has yet to be published, and has absolutely no sources. Article is written by User:Rei Hirashame, also the name of the main character which draws WP:COI concerns as well. Long story short, it's vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, non-notable —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search only turns up self-published sources by the author. Unpublished fiction is rarely notable. Delete the article for now, consider restoring it when (& if) publication actually occurs. JulesH 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, NN, unverified, possible COI. -- Kicking222 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- W666 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and as crystalballery. When published, if he's notable, I'd go with it. --Dennisthe2 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:CRYSTAL. MER-C 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Looks like it was made by some random person.--SUIT 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ballism. Create the article when and if the manga is published. Shimeru 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Fred McGarry 10:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to have been written by the manga author himself. Also not notable. -Pingveno 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:Sd31415/Sig
Delete per nom. To the above user, I suggest stubsting your signature.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--John Lake 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Man the first manga's nose is huge! What's his powers? Vacum cleaning? ;) Spawn Man 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.MightyAtom 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. Evidence suggests article needs cleanup, but nominator provided no reason for deletion. Almost all other editors agreed this was a topic worth keeping.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teletubbies episodes[edit]

Come on, people. This article is pretty pointless. It's incomplete, and simply a mess. Not wikipedia quality in any way, shape, or form. Chaz 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It obviously needs a great deal of work, but that's not a deletion rationale. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a LOT of cleanup. Yes, it may be very messy, but it could be expanded and cleaned up. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teletubbies. Article isn't too large to have an episode list in it. And remove the apparent future episode. JulesH 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it sucks doesn't mean it shouldn't be here †he Bread 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Bread. :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Bye-Bye~~! If any real content happens to come along any time soon, merge it to Teletubbies. Aside from the obvious errors here, (two pilot episodes, and an upcoming 2008 season?), I seriously doubt there's actually enough distinction in the plotlines of a show aimed at one-year-olds to merit documenting each individual episode, much less a list of them. Wavy G 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teletubbies, I agree fully with JulesH. PKT 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to the originator. I wouldn't mind seeing it stand alone once it's closer to a complete sea of blue. Anybody want to AfD the already blue-linked articles in the list? B.Wind 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article. Dahn 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teletubbies. Purest evil, but it's notable enough. --Dennisthe2 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete- not nearly complete enough to merge, let alone keep. Sfacets 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted or merged. Having a separate episode guide list for such a popular show is perfectly encyclopedic and obvious. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because an article is in bad shape that means you can just send it to AFD or prod. Needs lots of expansion and cleanup. Ter e nc e Ong 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the individual episode articles. Teletubbies episodes are most definitely not notable enough for seperate articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with individual articles? I'm confused by this. Wavy G 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Teletubbies. Episode guides on a minor childrens TV show does not warrant own article. Article contains no real info other than names, since the pages about the episodes themselves have not been created (and should not be). --Fred McGarry 10:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor children's TV show. The bloody thing is shown across the world and translated in I don't know how many languages. That's not minor. If you meant minor as referring to the children (children are always minors) I don't see any reason to treat it different than a show for adults. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Teletubbies until it contains enough information about the episodes in question (merge episodes to the list if that is needed to get some substance). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per precedent. There's an entire wikiproject devoted to television episode lists, and there are episode list articles for shows with only a few episodes. Expand and clean-up, obviously. 23skidoo 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although it would be perfectly ok as a stand alone article, Would be best as a part of the main article.Dolive21 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent towards having episode lists of notable shows. While it was a silly kids' show, it certainly was successful in a number of countries. The current article is a total mess though, with several obviously fake episodes ("The Death of Po") and wrong names for some of the real ones. I deleted a linked hoax article about a supposedly "adult" episode with sexual content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The show is notable enough to warrant a seperate episode list.--T o m^{I edit my userpage too much}, 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Okay, after looking into this, I discovered that, not only is this list here completely inaccurate, but it is about 1/20th of the actual list. Tv.com lists a whopping 340 episodes! Most of the titles given here are wrong, and it is clear the article was written in jest. I suggest a complete rewrite, and changing my vote to Keep. Even without descriptions, I think with 300-some episodes, just a list of the episode titles/airdates/etc is enough to warrant a separate article. Wavy G 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am suggesting keeping and rewriting the list, NOT redlinking 340 potential episode articles.
Agreed. What rivetting plot concepts could you actually have on the episode articles?? Eps 1 - Lala & Twinky run around a large green field. Eps 2 - Lala & Po run around a large green field. Eps 3 - All three run around a large green field jumping into holes. Eps 4 - The same three wonder where the gay one has gotten to... Etc etc etc... ;) So yes, only rewrite the list... Spawn Man 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I argue for keep and for the page to be blanked? Nothing on this page is verifiable, and I suspect much of it is made up. WP:V is the "threshold for inclusion" in Wikipedia, and nothing here meets that standard. The topic is worthy of a page, though. There are episode guides for far less prominent shows. --Walor 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Change to full keep now that edits have been made. --Walor 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be edited, and its contents completely replaced, during the next seven days while it is on AFD. Alternatively the outcome is unlikely to preclude a list of this type, merely this incarnation of it, as several comments above object to the inaccuracy more than the subject matter. That will be up to the closing administrator to clarify, though, if needed. -- nae'blis 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lists of episodes seem to be common enough, and are better then actually having 320 teletubby articles. *shutter*. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, big hug keep - Man I could have really gone to town coming up with ways to say to delete this article, but alas, I must settle for a keep as it was a pretty famous (although absolutely rubbish) show. Spawn Man 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and blank. Incredibly notable television show, should have an episode list on Wiki. Cleanup is needed of course, but being shitty is not a reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fixed up the list some. Threw it into a table and got some better data from eofftv.com and tv.com. I'll leave the date wiki-linking to someone with AWB running. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg... I feel wikidirty for working on a teletubbies article. *shutter* ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it *shudder*? Unless there's a new emotion I don't know about lol... ;) Spawn Man 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, J.S. I think that's pretty much all that can be done at this point, other than maybe breaking it down by season. And somebody track down the joker who put up the original 16-episode list and give him a smart pounding for duping an entire group of adults into wasting this much time discussing it on Afd. Wavy G 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, mechanically engineer a television into his chest & make him watch days of our lives performed by teletubbies. Will certainly drive him & anyone near him in a 1 kiliometre radius completely mad... ;) Spawn Man 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it was this guy, well known for adding false information, focusing primarily on child-oriented subjects (kinda creepy). Wavy G 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or split individual articles. Poeple above said what I needed to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a notable show, and if we're going to have things like List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes and (more analogously) List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos, there's no reason not to keep this. Heimstern Läufer 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD was suggested before the current content of the article--when it was nothing but a list of 16 or 17 episodes, most of which were worded wrong, or just outright joke entries. The article has since been fixed. Just FYI Wavy G 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep except there are a few mistakes on this page. The second episode of the show is called Our Pig Winnie except when you click on the page it comes up as being called Piggy Winne. This makes no sense... Debaser23 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently completely unreferenced, and thus unverifiable. Weak keep, based on precedent, if verifiable, reliable sources can be provided; otherwise delete per WP:V. -- The Anome 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Avenue[edit]

This street (allegedly a thoroughfare in Bethpage, New York does not appear notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article hurts my eyes when I read it, it's so non-notable. Delete. WMMartin 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Bethpage, New York per WP:LOCAL, the town article needs more content and this article isn't really about the road itself, it's about a lot of stuff about the town (the local school, big local businesses, etc.); information that should be kept, just not here. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move anything useful to Bethpage and Delete. Glendoremus 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't do that, under the GFDL we need to keep the article history to properly attribute the authors. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it remains, we should ensure that Stewart Avenue does not redirect to any particular location, as the name is quite common. Perhaps move to Stewart Avenue, Bethpage and delete the redirection, then merge to Bethpage, New York? Would that comply with the requirements of the GFDL? JulesH 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would, as the article history would now be at Stewart Avenue, Bethpage. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --PKT 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Much information can be moved to Bethpage but I believe that Stewart Avenue also runs through Garden City and perhaps some other villages. Or is that a different Stewart Avenue? In any event, a straight redirect to Bethpage might be misleading. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nothing notable worth merging, and a redirect would be inappropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Roads (excluding highways) do not warrant their own articles, no matter the size. --Fred McGarry 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh ... Wall Street? Yonge Street? WilyD 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Are you honestly comparing Bethpage to Manhattan and Toronto, and can you not see the differences between the world's financial center, a former Guinness Book "world's longest street" and a street whose only apparent claims to fame are having the HQ of a Fortune 500 company, an old grocery store, and a Subway restaurant? Geoffrey Spear 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am honestly saying that Roads (excluding highways) do not warrant their own articles, no matter the size is false, by providing counterexamples - you may note I already argued for deletion of this article. WilyD 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although 4 lanes might come close to notable as a transport route, I don't think it quite gets there. I didn't vote merge because I can't find anything useful in it.Dolive21 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it was actually desginate as a state or U.S. Route, I can't see how this road is worth an article. Merge local roads to the town would be impractical.-- danntm ^T _C 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most opinions here are based simply on a hatred of an inclusion of streets in Wikipedia. Note Fred McGarry's comment above. However, clearly streets can be notable content, as there are many articles on streets on Wikidpedia.Therefore, arguments based on that motivation are invalid. If we don't want to include Stewart Avenue, it should be because it does not warrant an article, not because we dont't like articles on these topics. This appears to be a main thoroughfare, that would be comparable to major streets in any other city. I think this can be either merged or renamed to Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, and would do it the most justice. Nlsanand 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already voted delete, so I won't double-dip. The article doesn't claim notability and doesn't say anything to establish it. I don't see some kind of bias against roads in (most of) the above comments, just an appraisal of the lack of notability for this one. Glendoremus 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article lacks relaible sources - if sources are added, then Keep WilyD 15:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, the main thoroughfare of a tiny town might be notable, but I'm going to have to see some evidence of its notability if you want to convince me it deserves an article here. Geoffrey Spear 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Just because things exist (utility poles, streets, 2 lane hiways, mailboxes, fire hydrants, bus stops) is not sufficient reason to have articles about them. Edison 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably created by a student at the externally-linked college. Of no interest outside of Bethpage. DrKiernan 10:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but merging to Maine United States Senate election, 2006 does not appear to be ruled out, either. Sandstein 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Slavick[edit]

Failed candidate for US Senate in Maine who got 5% of the vote. A previous version of the page also discussed his academic career, but he does not meet WP:PROF, as he is not a noted expert in his field and hasn't published a well-known work. He was a Fulbright lecturer, but the Fulbright Program funds dozens, if not hundreds of such lecturers each year. JChap2007 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any standing arguments for notability. -- Shunpiker 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5% for third party candidates is not unusual (or notable, for that matter) in races where there is not a competitive major party challenger. I'm all for a generous definition of notability while an election is under way: People need a real-time reference. But after it's over, if the subject of an article's only claim to notability is that they lost an election, and not even a close one -- how does that article serve the readers of Wikipedia? Who is possibly going to look it up, and to what end? 5% of Maine voters is more than enough to overwhelm "rough consensus" here, but not enough to warrant what would be, in effect, a memorial. If this article is going to be kept, then we need clearer guidelines that will be applied across the board to protect the articles of similarly non-notable candidates that get deleted every day in the absence of a Wiki-literate fan club. Otherwise, a keep decision would enforce an arbitrary bias. -- Shunpiker 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still think this article is more of a memorial than a useful reference, but I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote based on the fact that the bar seems to be lower than I imagined: I found more than a few unchallenged articles for candidates who polled significantly worse in the 2006 Senate elections, and who also appear to be notable only for their lapsed candidacies: Ralph Ferrucci (0.5% CT), Robert Fitzgerald (3% MN), Michael Cavlan (0.5% MN), Ben Powers (0.3% MN), Stan Jones (3% MT), N. Leonard Smith (0.3% NJ), Bill Van Auken (0.2% NY), Emory "Bo" Heyward (0.2% TN), Ed Choate (0.6% TN), Cris Ericson (0.6% VT), Bruce Guthrie (1.4% WA). My main concern regarding the application of AfD to political matters is that the criteria be applied fairly. I don't think it is being applied fairly, but it's probably better to err on the side of inclusion since that bias is at least more obvious, and more easily corrected. -- Shunpiker 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Dennisthe2 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, what's more than a candidate in the US Senate election. He didn't make enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia. Ter e nc e Ong 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, 5% in a major election is considered a major accomplishment for a 3rd party candidate in the US and is frequently considered past the threshold of "factor". In California it was the case with Peter Camejo in the 2002 Gubernatorial election where he got just over 5% of the vote (that's why he was allowed to participate in the 2003 recall election debates). --Oakshade 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, this discssion is about this person in particular. Arbitrary thresholds are just that: arbitrary. If this person was a factor in the election, it will have been reported and documented, and you will be able to point to non-trivial published works that discuss this person. If this person was not a factor, then the percentage is irrelevant. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs the original contributor who fought to have him stay on here for the election, and then shrunk his bio down to mark his relevance to the national election, I would say, he has a place. A small place, but as a third party candidate running against the most popular incumbent in the senate, and still getting 5%, I would say it is worthy of note...small note yes, but noteworthy.--Mitchsensei 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mis-use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for candidates to have candidate summaries published. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you advocate keeping a stub that you think should not be expanded and that, looking at the article history, you appear to have shrunk from a longer article. If we do not have a proper article on him (and by your own admission we shouldn't have one) it is better for our readers to discuss him in a larger context. JChap2007 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a place people go to seek information. I can think of a lot more useless information on here than information on a third party candidate for one of the most relevant political institutions on the planet. Now, having said that, I don't think there will be much extended discussion about Mr. Slavick. In fact, this deletion discussion is perhaps the biggest post-mortem his candidacy will get.--Mitchsensei 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle we should merge (per proposed guideline) to U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006, but that doesn't exist. I would not object to that outcome. As for the sentiment toward deletion, I'm ambivalent about the 5% threshold being cited -- to me, an inclusionist, it feels just enough. Nolo contendere, then. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an arbitrary figure and should not be a criterion. As stated above, if this person was a "factor" in the election, that will have been documented, whatever the percentage of the vote. The documentation of this person is the argument. Vote percentages are not. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mitchsensei.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5% seemed enough to be notable, even before i found out he was not one of the main teo parties. Definately notable. I can definatly see someone wanting to look him up. Dolive21 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Definitely? Really? Whatever for? -- Shunpiker 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a long standing editor on the article, I believe he is fairly notable. He finished in third place in a major election for one of the most important positions in the American government. --Thomas.macmillan 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So cite sources to demonstrate that he satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, and actually warrants an article instead of a single line in an election results table, which is all that what you have stated actually justifies. You have not cited any sources at all, not when you edited the article nor here. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006 and merge there per Dhartung. It's clear that multiple non-trivial published works are harder to find for a third-party candidate, given the systemic bias of the mainstream media. The notable story here is the election, which obviously needs the element of characterization. --Howrealisreal 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Maine United States Senate election, 2006. There isn't a need to create the article because it already exists.--Bobblehead 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Okay merge there please. --Howrealisreal 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Five percent is nothing, no matter how the keep voters try to redefine success. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and make a redirect to the Maine Senate election article. Even before the mass deletion the only reference for this article was Bill Slavick's campaign website. That fails WP:C&E, not to mention the failing of WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Bobblehead 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5% is miniscule Fledgeling 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any serious candidate for national office in the US should have an article. Even ones that are not so serious probably deserve one too. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep. It is an absurd notion that winning 5% of the vote in a state-wide election is a trivial feat. Getting 5% of the vote implies far wider notability. This article has significant potential for growth, and the subject is clearly notable. JDoorj a m Talk 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Just above the threshhold of notability. DS 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 5% in a national level election is definitely notable enough to justify being on Wikipedia. Sprhodes 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 5% is a good result, etc.

Weak Keep notice the Washington Post article on WP:AfD policy. It mentions this person's article and the television debate. [1]SYSS Mouse 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Oakshade and SYSSMOUSE. I don't think that getting five percent is a priori notable. For major party candidates it is almost impossible to field below 10% because partisans will automatically vote for their party's candidates. However, it is somewhat impressive for a third party candidate he does have election coverage from very faw away so he wasn't just a local phenomenon. JoshuaZ 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading[edit]

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very few Google results, none of which are indicative of a book which is notable on its own. Should maybe be merged into the currently nonexistant article for the author. Rampart 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a little thin and sales-like but the book is listed on some sale sites and seems notable. [2]. meshach 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the book is notable and with reliable sources such as Amazon, this article just needs an expansion as well as a cleanup. Ter e nc e Ong 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Information An Amazon.com listing is not a reliable source. It's not that hard to get - whether through vanity publishing or other means. Still there after a year (yes I've emailed Amazon about this - twice. Nothing happened.) Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to stub as per nom There is no substantive claim made in the article that this book is encyclopedically notable. There are numerous authors and books - most of them academic - on the history of the English language, the effect of new media on language, styles of internet communication etc etc etc out here. Not every one of these is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a book catalogue and having a listing on online bookstores is certainly not evidence of notability. What needs to be shown is that this book is regarded as "smarter than the average bear", so to speak. Amazon.com sales ranking is currently above 1.02 million. This does not rule out that the book is influential, but the Amazon listing is not a persuasive argument in favour of such an assertion. No prejudice against merging some of this content to a stub for Naomi S. Baron, although whether she passes WP:PROF is a matter for later debate (Baron does not have the profile of say, the British linguist David Crystal). Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Merge to what stub? Make up your mind. Delete and merge are mutually exclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "/" means "or". Also see nom. Stub can be created Bwithh 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a nice little book with reviews in professional circles but not a very notable work. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, not sure this meets WP:BK and the article is in pretty bad shape but Worldcat shows that this book is in many university libraries which is indicative of some interest. However, it's important to remember that database listings such as Amazon's are not reliable sources. Yes, they confirm that the book exists but beyond that they are of no use since the book description is most likely written by the publisher (not reliable because of conflict of interest). What would convince me is some indication that the book has been cited as reference often enough to merit a mention here. Pascal.Tesson 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree as above. --PremKudva^Talk 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pascal.Tesson and professional reviews mentioned. They just need to be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability test --Orange Mike 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a conversion table for Amazon rankings [3] a sales rank of 1,000,000 out of the 4,000,000 books for sale would indicate about 3 sold every 500 days. Was it ever relatively popular, like a ranking of above 100,000? I could not find any published reviews. But I would take a look at it if I saw it in a library. Edison 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because its on amazon doesn’t mean its notable Fledgeling 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletionists are arguing either that its not high enough on amazon, or that an amazon listing is meaningless--two contradictory propositions. Serious book, importuant publisher, likely to be of interest to WP people. DGG 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published book, reviewed in notable publications. Needs references, but they are available. Proto::type 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, non-vanity book by well-known publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a book directory. Books that change the world in a meaningful way maybe merit an article. Catalogs don't. --Improv 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Simeon Jackson, delete Eyre and Wilson. Majorly 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Eyre[edit]

Nicky Eyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played a first-team game for a professional team. For this reason I also nominate his team mates Glenn Wilson (footballer) and Simeon Jackson HornetMike 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simeon Jackson as he played for Rushden & Diamonds 17 times when they were in League 2, when R & D were a fully professional team. As for the others, a weak delete.Daemonic Kangaroo 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't Rushden & Diamonds still full-time pros despite relegation to the Conference? (Although that would still not make the league fully professional, there's at least three or four semi-pro teams in it). - fchd 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wilson and Eyre only per WP:BIO.Catchpole 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jackson, weak delete of the others. WikiGull 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Woops, re: Jackson. My mistake. Re: the other two, whilst Rushden are presumably still professional, the Conference isn't as standard. As they've only played for them in the Conference, and don't have any other League appearances, they fail WP:BIO. HornetMike 12:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rushden and Diamonds are Conference North but professional. Many teams in the lower Scottish Leagues (SFL 2 and 3) are both semi-professional and have lower crowds. I think this should stay. Gretnagod 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eyre and Wilson, weakest keep possible for Jackson, as I don't feel League 2 players to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia. --Angelo 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simeon Jackson, he has made appearences in the Football League, a professional league, which is worthy of notability. -- Mattythewhite 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jackson - and Delete the others Kingjamie 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Rushden & Diamonds are still fully-professional, as is 75% of the Conference Superlinus 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So we're keeping Conference players now, are we? Blimey. HornetMike 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All R+D are still a professional club, I really dont see the harm in allowing fans of the smaller professional teams to make squad navboxes. Thousands of people go to see teams like R+D every weekend and its not like Wikipedia is short of space.King of the North East 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki, since that's already been done. --Core desat 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for pike[edit]

Fishing for pike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Article reads like something which should be on an uneditable enthusist's website or a fishing wiki. Offers no information as to the subject's notability and does not seem to follow the manual of style. Seems to be a perpetual target for spamming. This is simply not the kind of article for a free encyclopedia. If a more appropriate sister project would be a better location, Transwiki. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research (since it's not cited well) and is a how to. -- Mikeblas 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever relevant info is left to Pike (fish) after a MAJOR overhaul. Right now it reads like a Field & Stream article, but once all the POV and "how to" garbage is removed, there actually seems to be some decent content. PS: this article has been around since 2002, and this is the best we've got? Wavy G 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or delete as a how-to, which Wikipedia is not. MER-C 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pike. How to fish it should be in that article, not outside. --Fred McGarry 10:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Transwiki to WikiBooks and leave link in Pike. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merging this kind of stuff would simply disrupt a perfectly good article on pike, which are more than "things that swim around waiting to be caught". --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikibooks. It sounded like wikibooks material the moment I saw the title. Confirmed by the article. Dolive21

Delete As per Elaragirl. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a how-to guide. -- Whpq 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's original research and how-to; by no stretch of the imagination encyclopedic. --Orange Mike 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, unencyclopedic fishing lesson.--John Lake 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki-After consideration I change my vote to Transwiki to WikiBooks.--John Lake 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I sent the delete voters a message and I would like to ask anyone who makes a comment after me to explain why they prefer not to transwiki if they vote to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. The content doesn't fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, but it would be a shame to lose it. Fits Wikibooks remit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now imported -- has been transwikied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Fishing for pike). In the future, if transwiki is urgently needed, please list on b:WB:RFI. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect/merge. Majorly 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Markle[edit]

Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable model who appears on a gameshow with a non-speaking role. This model has a few other credits on IMDB, but none appear to be substantial (that is, plot-involved) roles, mostly appearing as an irregular guest on series shows. Mikeblas 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Deal or No Deal (US game show). She appears to be one of 26 models designated to hold up cases. I'll remove the redlinks from that article as well - the last thing we need is someone coming and filling them in. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete per Dolive21. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) opened the case at 02:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC): redirect and fold into Deal or No Deal (US game show).[reply]

Redirect and merge to Deal or No Deal (US game show). Ter e nc e Ong 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I found this on new page patrol I would tag it for speedy deletion. A redirect would be confusing, as she does not belong in the article for Deal or no deal. Dolive21 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. and not other work of note to base an article on. -- Whpq 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kesse Wallace[edit]

Kesse Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. The contestant was eliminated fairly early, and didn't go on to do any notale work -- she's now just another struggling fashion model. Mikeblas 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Not notable on her own. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. 15 minutes are up. meshach 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable reality TV reject. MER-C 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough notability for an article of a reject. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per reasons stated above.--SUIT 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Nothing that would be useful in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Dolive21 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nn-notable, non winner contestant on a reality show.--John Lake 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mind matrix 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beirut Spring[edit]

Beirut Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is on a blog with no notability and no verification. There is no press that has featured Beirut Spring, thus it violates WP:WEB. Diez2 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - there is nothing to redeeem it. LittleOldMe 12:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there was a short mention on German chanel 1 TV in a program called Weltspiegel, but then again, that does not acertain notability- only that somebody noted.Rough 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansonite[edit]

Its been three years since this article was started, and after all that time we've yet to receive any reliable sources for this article. It also reads much like an over-glorified dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. Of the two external links provided, one is for Encyclopedia Gothica (not reliable) and the latter is a BBC article which does nothing to support the existence of this neologism. My suggestion would be to delete as unsourced original research. RFerreira 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dahn 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It really doesn't matter how long the article has been lacking good sources (I've seen pages tagged with notability since 2004), but it does fail WP:NOT, so delete this sucker. Diez2 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10,200 Ghits, so it should be sourceable. Lack of sources is not presently a deletion criterion. The article goes into more detail than a simple dictionary defintion would, so does not fail WP:NOT, as claimed. dryguy 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cite the speedy deletion criteria, not the regular deletion criteria. Try again. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's a proposed criteria, and the point is that it is failing to muster consensus. There is no regular deletion criteria that says lack of citations is grounds for deletion. If there was, the majority of Wikipedia would be up for AfD. The closest existing regular deletion criteria I can find to support those who want to delete this, is that unverifiable articles should be deleted. Since this term has 10,200 Ghits, it may be verifiable. If someone wants to argue otherwise, I'm all ears. dryguy 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Lack of sources can well be a valid deletion criterion, if the article cannot be transformed into something verifiable by the close of this discussion it can and should be deleted. RFerreira 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiability is a criterion for deletion. Simple lack of sources is not currently a guideline for deletion. If I'm wrong, then cite the guideline that explicity says this and I'll change my vote. If you want to argue that Mansonite is unverifiable, you should do so, and lay off the spurious argument that lack of sources is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, which is not really relevant here. My reasons for deletion are clear and I'll stick with them, thanks. RFerreira 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, but contrary to guidelines. dryguy 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the last time, speedy deletion has nothing to do with the Articles for Deletion process. Stop citing policy that has no bearing on this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced the talk page, not the proposal (it isn't policy). If you read through the comments, you will see that there is not a consensus that lack of citations is a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. There is no relevant policy to cite, simply because there isn't an existing policy that states that lack of references is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The page is up for AfD as "unsourced original research", not for lack of citations. See the criteria for deletion for more details. Lack of citations is grounds for putting a banner that says there are no citations for the work. Your policy cite still has no bearing on the discussion, and you've been asked by Danny above to please stop doing this. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ignoring my point. 10,200 Ghits is likely to be evidence of the existence of external sources, which might well show that the subject of the article isn't OR. There may be parts of the article that are OR, which is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. dryguy 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Now in some articles it might be that the sources exist but haven't been added - given that it's been three years, this seems unlikely here. If someone finds a reliable source for mansonite in future, they can always add a new article based on that. Mdwh 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Just H 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost a Transwiki. Almost. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism with little to no sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a subtype of Marilyn Manson fan? Almost BJAODN, except it isn't funny. Besides, we had some mansonite in our kitchen and it was really hard to get out. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per above. Kukini 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even though I've contributed to the article. Although I certainly believe that everything in the article is true, unfortunately, it is very hard to find documented sources for these kinds of things. Although I believe that the information in the article deserves to be on Wikipedia somewhere, perhaps as a segment of the Goth subculture article, AFAIK the term "Mansonite" is not even in widespread use-I can rattle off a half-dozen alternate terms for the same thing which I've heard both on the Internet and in local scenes, whereas I never heard "Mansonite" until I came to Wikipedia. The behaviour/stereotype described in the article is not limited to Marilyn Manson fans, either. Perhaps a more useful, similar article can be created in the future. --Halloween jack 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week keep~~ Lots of google hits. Seems to be in common usage in some groups, and the article provides useful insight into that aspect of the culture. Per proposal at WP:ATT it could probably be sourced with less reliable sources than we would require for most articles, too, which might make some sources become available. JulesH 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The more I think about this, the more I feel we shouldn't be deleting stuff based on a lack of sources, when a proposed policy change that looks likely to succeed will make the sources we do have acceptable. JulesH 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC):[reply]

What policy change is that? If you mean WP:ATT, that still requires "reliable, published source". If anything, I'd say that policy strengthens existing policy, and would be all the more reason to delete this article. Mdwh 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if WP:ATT becomes policy, the "Encyclopedia Gothica" would seem to be what it calls a "questionable source". The BBC link doesn't contain the word "mansonite" at all. Demiurge 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Encyclopedia Gothica may qualify as a "questionable source" (although I'm uncertain; it seems to have an editor independent of the content creators and to require a minimum standard from its articles, but as to what fact-checking processes they employ it is hard to tell), but I feel this particular source would still be usable on this article despite these reservations, due to the exception for subjects "where professional sources offer shallow coverage". I don't think there are many professional quality sources on attitudes between different subsections of the goth subculture. JulesH 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Encyclopedia Gothica is probably about as questionable as the Jargon File - even if the JF has been around longer. It kind of becomes one of those things that are questionable only because it's something that documents particulars of a community. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not having sources is not a reason for deletion. Reliable sources not existing is. The first needs cleanup, the second is a violation of WP:V. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. dryguy 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable evidence that it exists as a term outside the article creator's head, in which case it's a neologism and/or Original Research. --Orange Mike 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term does exist outside the author's head (it's not rare in the goth community as a disparagement) but this is stuff for a slang dictionary, not an encyclopedia; at best, it rates a small mention on Marilyn Manson, but not sure it rates even that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term certainly exists, but it's already mentioned in Goth slang, and I'm not sure what else we can say about it that would be notable and verifiable. Mdwh 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian National Vanguard[edit]

Romanian National Vanguard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire article is obvious fascist propaganda copied from the official site (very likely, buy the very same person who created that site). There is no notability to speak of: the name will show on google searches only once outside of the wiki article (twice, if you count a post on a "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" thread...). The Romanian-language version of the name gives... no links whatsoever. It looks like they are only gathering followers in this manner, and wikipedia should not be helping them achieve the notability needed for them to have a wiki article... I mean, if you ask for someone to balance the text, but you would have to find someone who has heard of them or cares about them enough to criticize them. I could just as well create my own couple of "Vanguards", and start wiki articles on them. Dahn 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fascist cells with only one proud member that don't even have a connection to the nation their name would imply that they're based in are not notable in any way. Of course the Romanian name gives no hits, it's one guy in Michigan.

Delete Aside from the article making no assertion of notability, the organization makes no sense. If I'm reading this correctly, it was founded by some unnamed man, who is not accepting, nor has not accepted, any new members from its inception until the present. So basically, it's not an organization, but ONE guy??? Wavy G 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You create an article once you have notability; you don't create an article to generate notability. As an aside, how did you happen to choose the name of Romania for your inane project? Couldn't you sully some other country, like Lilliput or Oz? Biruitorul 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. A particularly ludicrous (if obnoxious) "one man and his dog" "let's hold our party conference in a phone booth" outfit. --Folantin 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because of notability (which is, remember folks, not policy) but because of the complete lack of verifiability. Cynical 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. (If there's only one member, how does it have a vice-president?) It's interesting that the World Union of National Socialists website does list this, but under Romania, not USA, so perhaps they've been hoaxed as well!. Emeraude 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One man who believes that the jews are ganging up with the commies to come and get the whites is not notable. Dolive21 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete solidly per nom and Biruitorul.--John Lake 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for listing. Linuxaurus 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely vile. Non-notable advertising. Moreschi 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TSO1D 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berg-Munch[edit]

Berg-Munch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a "prominent" Scottish/English/Irish family. Hmm...A little vague? No notability and no verification. Diez2 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author used the word "prominent," which means absolutely nothing, except that it can't be speedy deleted. Wavy G 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't be that prominent if our article is the first google result. WP:VAIN. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Sure it can. Saying the word "prominent" without explaining why something is prominent does not equate to an assertion of notability. Serpent's Choice 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not cite reliable sources WilyD 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not really specific, and don't see how it can be improved.--SUIT 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. DrKiernan 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Bryan[edit]

Betsy Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about Betsy, who is best known for leading an excavation crew somewhere in Africa. It would probably be better if she was best known about her Johns Hopkins employment, but there is no verification on that. Diez2 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source or delete. MER-C 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already cites a Johns Hopkins University page identifying her as holding a named professorship. I added some books that she has written and some other references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --- RockMFR 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TT's good work as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MER-C's request, it got sourced. --Oakshade 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mind matrix 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It Comic[edit]

Stick It Comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recreation of previously deleted Stick It! (comic). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Should be tagged with db-repost if it was a recreation. Warn the author about the 3RR rule. Diez2 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 02:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and discuss possible merging on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashgrovian[edit]

Dictionary article (and the etymology) that should belong in WikiDictionary. Diez2 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It stands for improvement, as far as noting what constitutes Ashgrovian. --Dennisthe2 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a unique style with regional notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm no architect, but if this is a distinct style of building with definable qualities (as it seems to be at the moment), then it seems notable enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, I've never done the image-uploading thing before, but if it will help move this beyond the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument, I've got a good enough idea (courtesy of Google and a whole series of photos I don't want to try to get copyright details of) of what this looks like to find an example and upload a photo thereof. It's the sort of thing this article will need anyway, so it can only help in the long run. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Fred McGarry 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - May be more appropriate to merge as a section highlight on the vernacular architecture and/or Ashgrove, Queensland articles. I've placed a note on the apparent creator's talk page giving him/her a heads up that this is up for discussion. --Keesiewonder 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Architecture of Australia or Australian architectural styles or most likely, Australian residential architectural styles. Notablility established Here. This is clearly a recognised 'style' in Australia. The article in its current form is very stubby though and a merge with either of the above articles seems appropriate. The 'dictionary article' rationale doesn't really bear close scrutiny, the article is much more than a definition. Popularity is discussed, the relationships of the parts are examined and we are told how the buildings were adapted, that's encyclopedic in my book (if too stubby for an article on it's own). If it's significantly expanded in the next seven days (more than just adding a photo though) then I'm a keep. If the decision is keep then the article needs renaming to Ashgrovian style. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given references as it seems to be an architectural style of some significance. Possibly rename as per McGinley. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1). Renesis (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Books[edit]

Better Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:LOCAL. This is borderline nonsense about a bookstore somewhere in London. Diez2 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagged as such. This article is nonsense because there was no bookshop of that name at this address. The confusion is with 84 Charing Cross Road based on a bookshop with a different name, Marks & Company. TerriersFan 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per TerriersFan. Even if there were a bookstore at the address later, it wasn't individually notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Might I add: we're not the Yellow pages. Pascal.Tesson 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xwrits[edit]

Xwrits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted on A7, undeleted per request. Concern is WP:SOFTWARE. - crz crztalk 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with waffle, but solely on account that it's in Debian Sarge. --Dennisthe2 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems like a decent enough article. But why is the software's name spelled Xwrits instead of Xwrist? JIP | Talk 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting article, and notable.Dolive21 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did google search and found it in MIT's database as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

Keep as per above. –– 30sman 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cool, but not yet notable, web content. This isn't the place to spread the word about new software, only to write about it once it becomes more entrinched. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article. Of course I think it should be kept. :-) --unforg e ttableid | how's my driving? 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon number[edit]

The concept is total original research, only discussed in jest by unreliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. Deco 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR broken here. Just H 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally useless, as per Deco. — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Sr13 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOR vio, if one can call it "research". Belongs in WP:BAD - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears not to be OR for Wikipedia, but an in-joke among mathematicians. The article has a reference to the Daily Telegraph so it's not completely made up just for here; and the table is interesting information not available in this format anywhere else, which is always a plus for me. But we lost Yellow Pigs Day, so I don't suppose we'll save this one either. Newyorkbrad 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been around for a long time and is interesting. I've greatly expanded it with what seems like "original research" to someone who hasn't actually read the policy WP:NOR. All "research" is taken from known sources and compiled, just as any encyclopedia article would be. If people want to use a stricter definition of OR and scale this back, that's fine. If people want to contribute specific criticisms about the tone or layout of the article, those criticisms can be addressed. But the actual reasons given for deletion are perplexing. Are Bacon numbers used in any fashion other than "in jest"? Why not delete that article, too, or any of the thousands of other articles chronicling humorous phenomena? And I've yet to see someone describe how this is OR or what the sources lack in terms of reliability. The sources are IMDb, the Erdős Number Project, and the like, which are very reliable, and the references as to notability are the The Daily Telegraph and Boing Boing, not exactly obscure sources themselves. Please, base your recommendations on actual policy and actual facts, not on a knee-jerk reaction to an article about a phenomenon unfamiliar to you. Calbaer 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. You convinced me, though I still think this is a pretty stupid idea. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few mentions of a joke does not equal "notability". Only a few people are mentioned in the articles, and so the choice of who else to include is original research. Maybe it should get a few sentences in Erdős number, though I still doubt that it's any more than a minor joke that got a bit of press coverage. --SPUI (T - C) 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of whom else to include is made by the definition of the term. Synthesizing primary and secondary sources is not OR; it's what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Again, it's hard to see what part of WP:NOR this supposedly violates. And clearly if notability were the main concern, it would have been mentioned in the initial AfD call. The concerns were NOR and RS, and the article satisfies both of these. Calbaer 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge with Erdos number. Danica McKellar made a circular reference to our article so that's not really a citation. Even with Mayim Bialik doing neuroscience, it's not likely to expand quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Erdos number, I don't know what on earth this thing is talking about. Not notable in its own right imo. Ter e nc e Ong 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting and I think notable. Dolive21 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced, ecyclopaedic. Goofy is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calbaer.Trystan 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough is enough, and the only sources are unreliable. Voretus ^talk 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a better reference for the Daily Telegraph? Like what day it appeared? Morwen - Talk 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice — I don't know myself — although note that Simon Singh's website should be a reliable source in and of itself, given that he is a top popular mathematician. Calbaer 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find a link to a Telegraph article (I don't have a searchable database handy), but both the article and Singh's site only assert that the reference was written for the Telegraph; not that it was published there. I'd call Singh a science writer rather than a mathematician. Still, I think this one is a weak keep. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in the Daily Telegraph.[4] Not sure if that link will work for everyone, but it should turn up using their search engine.--Trystan 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks for the link. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A trivia enough notable, but at the edge of enclyclopedicty, - Cate |_Talk 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not a great deal to be found, but what I find on this is often of high quality. It's in a scholarly article on the Small World Phenomenon put out by the University of California, San Diego--T. Anthony 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T. Anthony, that seems to be a poorly-researched undergraduate paper, because it misuses "Erdos-Bacon number" where it clearly means "Erdos number". --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surprisingly, this does meet WP:RS. --- RockMFR 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although the sources may be reliable I think this I see no signifcant support for this being a notable widely used neologism. Yes, it is out there but I would say fairly non-notable. No dispute about the various Erdos-bacon numbers just about the notablility of the subject. Gets 334 ghits with many wikipedia mirrors. Kind of weak. --Nick Y. 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I would merge into Erdős number or Bacon number if either had a clear claim. But as it is, better to leave it in one place and have them both link here. I see no reason why WP cannot explain jokes; and there is no reason why anyone interested in the handful of examples should have to regenerate the figures from the separate articles. Septentrionalis 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is reliably sourced. However, this topic isn't notable nor encyclopedic. This is the equivalent of something made up in school one day for math professors, one of which happened to convince someone to write about the subject. VegaDark 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made up in school one day by some professor who then convinced someone to publish it is often notable - convinced someone to publish it is the most obvious sign of notability. WilyD 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that everything published is notable? VegaDark 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stating that the argument you present is flawed. I'm not sure that's there's a generic criterion for notability (nor is lack of notability a generic criterion for deletion) ~ but published isn't something that can be tossed aside when asserting non-notability with no real evidence. WilyD 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that if something is published it is assumed notable until proven otherwise? That's a rather naive assumption. I've seen tons of published things that aren't notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. VegaDark 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you assume anything. Instead of assuming notability, why not evaluate it? I'm only suggesting being published is an indicator of notability, and one that can't be easily thrown aside (especially when no real argument of non-notability is made) WilyD 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did evaluate it, hence my original "vote". I determined it to be not encyclopedic enough for inclusion, despite being published. VegaDark 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds did you make that decision? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought to myself "If a (non-paper) encyclopedia could choose to include this or not, would they?" Common sense told me no. VegaDark 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no matter how well it is referenced. --- RockMFR 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, those two criteria are the same. A topic is notable by the definition there "if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is met here.--Trystan 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Erdos number per flamingspinach. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, OR. Jonathunder 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amusing, interesting, and perhaps unique in its tying together of history, statistics, and cinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.10.203 (talk • contribs)

Comment I've made the references more obvious for those thinking that this is OR on non-notable. The topic has been the subject of BBC radio, a leading British newspaper, a notable blog, and blogs by a notable persons. Again, any advice on improving the article would be appreciated, but please don't vote it down on aesthetics rather than policy. Calbaer 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Erdos number or Bacon number. (in fact, Bacon number itself should be merged with Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but that's a discussion for another day.) Spebudmak 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I heard of this concept outside of WP, thought it was notable hike395 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newyorkbrad and Septentrionalis. JamesMLane t c 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OR claims have been debunked. As for notability, it's notable enough. --C S (Talk) 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Newyorkbrad and Calbaer (though without the vehemence). --bainer (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per VegaDark. WMMartin 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a funny and interesting curiosity and I enjoyed reading it. I think it's a fine piece of trivia and should be kept. KDevaney 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Day[edit]

Rain Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trivial, unsourced, unlinked Robotsintrouble 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per all of the above. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though the term is not entirely disputable the lack of links to the article may not justify it to stay.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Here is evidence that the holiday is real, at least. But I don't think it's really significant enough for an article, and would at least need a substantial rewrite not to look like a poster for the holiday. The part about "rain day" as opposed to "rainy day" seems trivial and not necessarily true. Heimstern Läufer 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite being real. Not notable enough to have an article. Ter e nc e Ong 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the festival can be mentioned in the town's article (after considerable rewriting), but notability for one town's festival is not established.-- danntm ^T _C 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn notable, unsourced. The first draft consists only of a description of a rainy season or monsoon time and could have took a redirect. The edits added about the festival are poorly written and seeing that it ends with a drunken lifeguard smells like vandalism and is magnum unencyclopedic, nor does the festival seem notable enough for keeping in any event.--John Lake 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Rain Day is an accepted definition as used by the UK Meteorological Office and features in their Meteorological Glossary (ISBN 0 11 400363 7}, as an accepted measure in climatology. See AMS Glossary. Article could definitely be improved however. Yorkshiresky 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISKCON devotees by status[edit]

List of ISKCON devotees by status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable list of members. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sfacets 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most list members appear notable, which leads me to believe that the list itself is. -Drdisque 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a catagory for ISKCON, having a list as well, though adds slightly more detail with the person's status, isn't required. Also, ISKCON has over 100,000 members - Being a list of "ISKCON devotees by status" it certainly could get very long. Chopper Dave 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of notable ISKCON devotees. I hope there isn't another list that isn't by status out there, but we only need one. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge notable members to ISKCON Sfacets 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article seems against the basic aims of Wikipedia - I can't see that it suits any purpose more than a simple category list would. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep An organized list of notable members in a relgious succession. If a list of bishops can get in, so can this. DGG 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G10. Xoloz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi[edit]

Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable frat house Bm gub 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per about 100 different criteria: the article asserts little-to-no notability, and could fall under db-club. The first half of the article is an admitted copyvio (though I guess this is not speedyable, as the article has existed for more than 48 hours). The second half is nothing but a blatant attack. -- Kicking222 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sheehan[edit]

Sam Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-Notable youth amateur driver -Drdisque 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN driver who fails WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. To the closing admin, don't miss the redirect, Sam sheehan. -- Kicking222 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, fairly succesful in his field.Dolive21 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, 5th place in a small amateur series is not notably successful. -Drdisque 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kicking222. --Simonkoldyk 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the best 11 year old kart driver in a London suburb is not notable. If he's good enough, he'll qualify for an article for real in a few years. In the meantime, NN. WMMartin 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a pretty average racing record. Not notable. Glendoremus 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hethersett Middle School[edit]

Hethersett Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. Jacob1207 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing more than a directory entry. The school's name also gets only 100 total hits on Google, and most of these are also directory listings (if not even more trivial mentions). -- Kicking222 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hard to see notability here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any independent non-trivial sources with which to expand this article. No assertion of notability. Directory entry. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and even the more-inclusive WP:SCHOOLS. Would not be opposed to a merge/redirect to the village's article, though there's no significant information here. Shimeru 07:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shimeru. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLS and per previous debates.--WaltCip 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Article was originated by the Chair of the Governors, so possible COI. Emeraude 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Redirect or mergewith Hethersett - useful addition to that article. Emeraude 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SCH, more like a directory. Ter e nc e Ong 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another sad little school article which can barely speak its name. D enni ^talk 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hethersett. Article fails WP:SCHOOL, with little near-term prospect for expansion. There's no viable content to merge, but there's no valid reason to delete the article without changing to a redirect. Alansohn 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the village. redirects are cheap. But otherwise agree with sentiments given by Shimeru, Terence and others.JoshuaZ 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hethersett article per Alansohn. Redirects are cheap. Use them. Silensor 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hethersett. -- Satori Son 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hethersett. There is nothing notable in this directory entry masqurading as an article - it gives the school's name and location. It then gives the age range the school serves and its location, both of which would be better in the Hethersett article. The address and headteachers' names are not relveant to an international encyclopaedia. Thryduulf 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obviously written by some middle schooler who goes to that school. 2Pac 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see why that is a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

Mark Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful candidate for State House in PA. Non-notable person otherwise. Holds no other office. I actually supported the guy and sent him a few bucks. But the reality is that he won't be running for any notable office until 2008 so maybe in two years, he can be brought back. Montco 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't bring him back until after he's elected to something. Candidacy is not, in itself notable. Fan-1967 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Thousands of people run for their respective state legislatures every two to four years. That fact alone does not make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia Jacob1207 04:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed candidates are usually non-notable, unless they made something very well known or assert notability before. Ter e nc e Ong 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an unsuccessful candidate does not notability make.-- danntm ^T _C 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Island Elementary School[edit]

Cedar Island Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. Just a directory entry and nothing more. -- Kicking222 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Kicking222. D enni ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. I'd love to include a merge, but there is no useful content to move over. Article fails WP:SCHOOL with little prospect for expansion in the near term. Alansohn 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't developed an opinion on this one yet. The school appears to be a Blue Ribbon school [5] but I can't find any other detail about the school at all. I would suggest making of note of the ribbon in the school district article. Can someone else possibly find more sourcing about the school? JoshuaZ 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279, which I've already done. Care to close this or should we drag this on forever? Silensor 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted Viridae ^Talk 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.F.F Los Unicos[edit]

F.F.F Los Unicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No clear assertion of notability; no sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Doesn't seem to meet the sports inclusion standards. Crystallina 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I'd say this falls under CSD-A7. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: RS, V, NPOV and AWW. Sr13 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy red-card per Nuggetboy, 5-a-side amatuer street football team inherently NN. Article doesn't even say what country they're in, no way to verify anything. Tubezone 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-club. Hell, I'm not even sure if we're talking a group of real or fictional players, but it doesn't matter either way. -- Kicking222 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - early shower for this one, I think. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Roese[edit]

Neal Roese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:08Z

Delete. Wikipedia has a guideline WP:AB about autobiography. This article may violate it, since the user is named Nroese and this is the only article s/he has edited. The danger with being too permissive here is of course an escalating self-promotion phenomenon. --IslandGyrl 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COI. Just misses a speedy recommendation with its unsourced assertion of notability. B.Wind 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't consider WP:AUTO or WP:COI to be deletion criteria in themselves, but if the book he'd written had been reviewed seriously I'd consider whether he met WP:PROF. I don't believe he does even with this particular book. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobio + no serious indication that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis National School[edit]

Ennis National School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Significant enough to warrant a page? Sad mouse 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear so. Unless anyone can show that it is, delete. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few points to the article, including a link to media coverage of the campaign to rebuild the 100 years-old school. --Mereda 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Mereda's impressive job of sourcing, the article still makes no real claim to the notability of the school. In its current state, fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and, ignoring the ridiculous age criterion, WP:SCHOOLS. Do not oppose a merge/redirect to the appropriate school district or locality article. Shimeru 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shimeru stole my answer. D enni ^talk 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WIthout an official policy or guideline, there's no basis for stating here what is and is not "notable". I think the article as it stands now is sufficient for inclusion based on the aforementioned sourcing and the obvious historical nature (over 100 years old) of the place. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's located in Europe, where 100 years isn't that much, historically speaking. Certainly not enough to call it "obvious" without any supporting sources. And while there are no formal guidelines in place, it remains true that the article does not assert notability. Regardless of what may or may not constitute notability, it's general consensus that a claim of such is required. Shimeru 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some (like me) would find stating that it opened in 1897 is stating notability. Some would even find simply stating that it is a school is stating notability. Until a guideline/policy exists, we're all talking in the dark here anyway. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is WP:NN. This school has not been shown "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Shimeru 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight a bit, it should be pointed out that WP:N is a "disputed" page that is directly part of an ongoing RFAR and arbcom has expressed concerns over its status [6]. Regarding your comment about sources, it is clear that you have not looked very deeply into press coverage of Ennis. In fact, Ennis has been at the heart of a national scandal involving sanitation and dangerous health conditions in the schools that has been extensively covered in the Irish press for years. --JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about any sources. I merely pointed out that none of them were cited in the article, and subsequently that the school cannot be called "obvious[ly] historical" without such sources. As for your source... I suppose "one of the most dilapidated schools" in the area could be considered noteworthy, on reflection. It's not the sort of accomplishment I tend to look for, personally. As for WP:N, it may be disputed, but it is not (yet) rejected, so, to the best of my knowledge, it remains a guideline. Shimeru 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shimeru actually meant WP:N not WP:NN which is what the dispute centers around. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My link and comment directly concerns the disputed WP:N. For further info, see the WP:N talk page and the entire arbcom case. --JJay 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With Mereda's efforts at expansion, sufficient additional sources have been added to demonstrate compliance with WP:RS and WP:V necessary to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS. Alansohn 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and WP:SCHOOLS which this article now meets, verifiably. Silensor 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. Article needs to be developed to include the health scandal, the threatened teachers strike over the issue and the church's windfall from the rezoning of a new site for the school (registration or pay required to view articles but google news gives an idea [7]). I shouldn't have to remind people that we do not delete articles just because they are stubs. Finally, to answer Sad Mouse's question: yes, this school is more than significant enough to merit a page--JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay presuming someone adds the sources. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete on the absence of sources at this time, which is when we are commentingDGG 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like every single sentence is sourced. --JJay 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons cited above. WMMartin 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company)[edit]

Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:32Z

Speedy delete as spam, corporate spa Wowzamedia (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. You would think that living in the same city as they supposedly work from, I would hear something about them if they were notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and merge to List of films by gory death scene. Merge has already been performed and the other article is an entirely appropriate place for the material. If that article is not appropriate then a second AfD nomination is required. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the article and redirected to the page where material was merged, so the contributors are attributed as the GFDL requires. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that feature head explosions[edit]

Movies that feature head explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-encyclopedic list. Not only is this a list of dubious value and unlikely to ever be comprehensive, it also suggests having similar lists for every other type of death or similar event depicted in a movie. Next we'll have List of movies that feature talking babies, List of movies that feature bears, etc. Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies that feature talking babies and List of movies that feature bears would be far too large to be useful compared to this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really...hmmm. There are 10 movies listed for exploding heads, how many times more can you come up with that have talking babies? :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. My head explodes at the cruftiness of this list. MER-C 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:MER-C. Additionally list does not conform to the Manual of Style -- wtfunkymonkey 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amusing, but a new low for listcruft. Slightly leaning towards BJAODN. —Cuivi é nen 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I feel it should be added as a section to List of films by gory death scene, which technically already covers a few of these.--Tenka Muteki 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda makes me think that's another list that ought to be deleted, but if it is to stay, then the merge would make sense. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Your head a splode. Danny Lilithborne 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as comprising an indiscriminate collection of pointless information. Vizjim 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not required. --PremKudva^Talk 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Fred McGarry 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exploding heads are uncommon enough to have a short to the point list about the topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom that this would set a precedent. Also, looking at the list the criteria is shaky -- it includes a head being blown off by a shotgun and that happens in a lot of films and that's not a head "Explosion". Plus there are a couple of examples that appear to be speculative or at least uncited. 23skidoo 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yay for WP:OR. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR, listcruft, nonsense. Ter e nc e Ong 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I am the creator of the article and I think if anything, it should be merged either to List of films by gory death scene or exploding head. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so that was actually my first article. I was unaware of any list rules, but now I know. Lemmy12 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that List of films by gory death scene had already been up for deletion, but survived. Lemmy12 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, in fact.--Tenka Muteki 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explode the head (delete). Seems a bit obvious, actually. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable crufty OR list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been merged, I don't see how this debate should be continued further. I'll edit the newly-added section in List of films by gory death scene to be in alphabetical order. Lemmy12 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marakay Rogers[edit]

Marakay Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Ran once for PA office as a green in 2002. Wasn't on the ballot for governor in 2006 even though article claims she was a candidate. Holds no other office. Montco 04:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Ter e nc e Ong 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Featherman[edit]

John Featherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Did not even appear on GOP primary ballot in 2006. No other notable factors. Montco 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Ter e nc e Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wofford[edit]

Dan Wofford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Nothing else suggests notability. Montco 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Ter e nc e Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, are we going to start deleting the pages of every candidate that lost a Congressional election? That could be quite a task if we're setting such a precedent. User:Bruceberry
Comment You don't think its a poor precedent to have pages for every single candidate under the sun whether or not they are notable? I have no proposed deleting every single losing candidate. Some individuals are indeed notable outside of their failed candidacies. Some are not. Montco 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a major-party nominee for Congress is notable, ipso facto. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infra-progression[edit]

Infra-progression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original research with no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Not a dog 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:V. MER-C 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as article clearly indicates it is OR. WMMartin 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Author basically admits it is original research.Glendoremus 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotobo[edit]

Cotobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nom - Prod & Prod2 removed without explanation; Prod read: This topic is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. "Cotobo" has not been mentioned in any third party sources, and there also isn't any proof that "Cotobo" isn't a password-stealing program. There aren't pages for the several RuneScape bots that exist. As a minimum, this should be merged with Conquer Online; it certainly doesn't rate its own article Rklawton 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per mer-c meshach 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no google hits from useful third-party sources, clearly not notable. JulesH 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Avillo[edit]

Phil Avillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Took only 33.5% of the vote. Non-notable otherwise. Montco 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Slightly notable, he got some votes... Could be worked on, though.--SUIT 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Getting "some votes" would be a rather extreme loosening of notability guidelines. I think its generally prefereable that candidate wither win an election or make a big enough stink during an election that he gets tons of press coverage. Montco 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Now that the election is over, this entry seems to have very little valuable information. If we don't want to delete, maybe we could even redirect to another page dealing with the Pennsylvania 19th district congressional elections for 2006? Lois Murphy, who ran in PA's 6th district, did way better than Avillo, and she no longer has her own page. Instead, trying to get information on Murphy will redirect you to the Pennsylvania 6th congressional district election, 2006 article. --WayneNight 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Losing political candidates seem to represent an interesting challenge for the notability policies. By virtue of running in an election, a person will inevitably garner some media coverage. But, will it matter in five years? So, I think losing an unremarkable election is insufficient grounds, in and of itself, for inclusion. I might have suggested merge to Todd Russell Platts, but almost the entire contents of this article are already there. -Kubigula (ave) 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Romanelli[edit]

Carl Romanelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political candidate, briefly ran for Senate in PA, never even got on the ballot. Nothing else in background suggests notability. Montco 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006. —Cuivi é nen 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable because of the unusual circumstance that an opposing party tried to get him on the ballot. JamesMLane t c 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That can be covered briefly in the election article. It doesn't make Carl Romanelli notable that Rick Santorum tried to use him to save his skin. —Cuivi é nen 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006, given that what's in there is warmed-over campaign-speak and stuff that belongs in the campaign article. Non-notable beard, otherwise. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Alex Bakharev 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Foundation for Civil Liberties[edit]

From speedy. It is a marginally notable fund, I have heard its name a few times. Besides it might be involved with Alexander Litvinenko poisoning Alex Bakharev 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The organization is mentioned by legitimate news sources. [8] [9]. It also has 518+ Google hits [10],some of which are encyclopedias [11]. The organization appears to be quite wealthy and somewhat influential. Let it stay. --Ineffable3000 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's no Amnesty International but it easily meets notability. Article should be expanded and sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Vedova[edit]

Strong Delete - Completely devoid of almost any information; valueless; poor grammar and spelling ("Espressionism"); what is "corrente"?; no links or explanations of terminology; etc. 216.194.4.255 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination was found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Foundation for Civil Liberties. It's now in the correct spot. MER-C 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, Emilio Vedova was not only one of the most significant figures of Italian avant-garde art of the immediate post-war period but also an artist whose continuing experiments with a wide range of diverse techniques and media exerted an enormous influence on subsequent generations of Italian artists. Demiurge 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for God's sake! I have added a link to his bio at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection's site. I may add some more material, but anyways the guy is certainly notable. Just to give an idea of his fame and prestige, Luigi Nono composed an "Omaggio a Emilio Vedova" in 1957. Stammer 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ter e nc e Ong 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, all of nom's reasons are now invalid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see any valid reasons to delete presented.--Nick Y. 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42...delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of flashbacks on Lost[edit]

List of flashbacks on Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is unencyclopedic fancruft and does not present information better than List of Lost episodes or individual character pages. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED FLASHBACK SUMMARIES TO ALL EPISODES - WORK IN PROGRESS --SilvaStorm
No that won't solve the issue...and that is strange logic seeing as nobody has presented lack of material as an argument. It's the nature of the material, and adding more doesn't make it better...quite the opposite in fact. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, check user pages of yours, mine and Spawn Man - somewhere there they mentioned lack of material! I have added details to every flashback episode. --SilvaStorm

No, you're confusing lack of material with uselessness, (from before you added the details in any case anyway...). As I said before, every episode has a flashback, so you may as well see the list of episodes list. Whatever the case, the article is fan cruft & its contents can be seen in any of the episode articles... Spawn Man 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft. Information already present in other articles, such as the list of episodes, anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant, not in keeping with Wikipedia, etc. Better suited to lost.wikia -- PKtm 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quickly before it multiplies. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a really useless list. JIP | Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notice for deletion was removed by SilvaStorm and replaced with a Underconstruction label.PremKudva ^Talk 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I restored the AfD notice on the page. Rafy 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lost. Flashbacks do not warrant their own article. Please keep Wikipedia's high standard by not creating pages that cover minor issues. --Fred McGarry 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those flashbacks are already covered in the individual episode articles. I don't see why we need a list of them. What would it be used for? = Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination... also interesting to note when I asked for some justification for having this article on the talk page yesterday, SilvaStorm blanked my request... guess that meant he/she didn't have any.--Isotope23 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another piece of fancruft, and non-notable, unencyclopedic material. Does not warrant an article on Wikipedia, isn't there a Lostpedia? Ter e nc e Ong 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lumaga 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --theDemonHog 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Lost WIKIA thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Simonkoldyk 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are multiple flashbacks in every episode of Lost, making this unremarkable. --Canley 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unnecessary in my opinion, and as stated above, it's unencyclopedic.--SUIT 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Delete! - Ummm, the whole show is a flash back. Shouldn't there be an article called "Shows on Lost that actually show present events"? It would be a stub too... ;) As per nom... Spawn Man 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) —Doug Bell ^talk 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant information - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lost. Just H 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scoles[edit]

Paul Scoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Ran unsuccessully for Congress in 2004. Nothng else to suggest notability. Montco 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted, the title is a plausible misspelling of Paul Scholes, and should redirect there. Oldelpaso 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Paul Scholes. Vizjim 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he fails WP:BIO. Sure to the redirect, as well.--Kchase T 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. Well, the articles definitely need to be improved, but I'll take all of your words for it that the book and person are notable. —Cuivi é nen 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Riesman[edit]

David Riesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

with The Lonely Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author and lawyer, doesn't seem to quite meet notability requirements. Tagged as unreferenced for over a month with no edits whatsoever, but really the lack of references makes it difficult for me to see notability. Google and Amazon don't turn up much. Also nominating The Lonely Crowd, the article on his book that reads like a book review and has also been untouched for a while. Neither seems to manage notability, though I'd be happy to see otherwise. —Cuivi é nen 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The book was influential and popular in its day; the title has been re-used as well. --Orange Mike 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like he was quite notable, espeically from his book. [12] (ref inserted into article) --Oakshade 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep- This book is a biggie in academia - I am too lazy to find citations at the moment but I assure you 3/4 of my classmates in different disciplines in college had to read this thing.--Dmz5 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Dmz5 DGG 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional cities[edit]

List of fictional cities A-M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of fictional cities N-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What reason is there to have these huge unwieldly lists of things that are entirely unrelated, other than being fictional cities? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, potentially endless. The goal is more easily accomplished with categories and subcategories. Category:Fictional towns and cities already exists and can be further subclassified even by book or series or universe (e.g. Category:Fictional cities and towns in Middle-earth or Category:Fictional cities and towns in RuneScape). —Cuivi é nen 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the benefits of the category outweighs the benefits of a long, messy list in this case. Cuivienen's suggestion is a nice one, too. riana_dzasta 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per those above. This is something which is much better served by one or more categories. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I'd rather not see it used to populate equally useless categories. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but only because it is redundant with the category. Otherwise I see no problems. JIP | Talk 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 08:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is unmaintainably long with little additional value over categories. In this case, I think categories are better. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categories are better for such stuff, its going to go on and on. Sigh. Ter e nc e Ong 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list appears to be too arbitrary and unmanageable.-- danntm ^T _C 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Setting (fiction). It's the thought that counts with this page, but yes, it's getting to be too much. A mention on the setting (fiction) page (perhaps using one or more of the fictional cities as examples) would make more sense. --Dynamite Eleven 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there isn't already a place, I think there should be a list of fictional cities by the topic type, for example list of fictional cities in middle earth etc... At present it is too unwieldly & too impossible to maintain... Spawn Man 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is. You can check the category mentioned for subcats.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a category would suffice. Axem Titanium 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat frog[edit]

Fat frog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Only reference is for the recipe, no other claims in article are sourced. Prod removed with comment that this drink is popular in Ireland, but that fact is not in evidence and wouldn't in itself make the subject encyclopedic anyway. Quale 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the Wikibook Bartending. --Howrealisreal 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, which seems to be quite literally "made up in school one day." The ridiculous "popular drink ordered by students" comment was a big tip-off, along with that goofy picture. "Dude, I just invented a drink!" "Dude! Let's put it on Wikipedia! Get the camera, dude! Score!" Wavy G 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - COI obviously, & OR too. "It has been known to cause the sensation of sugar coated teeth in the morning but remains a popular drink nonetheless. The drink is rumoured to have originated in Ireland, inspired by Fat Frog ice lollies" - I think the original writer is very aquainted with the drink, & this section stinks of bad writing & OR. What ever the case, the fat frog looks horrible; the guy drinking it in the photo looks as if he's gonna drop dead any minute now... Spawn Man 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR. WMMartin 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money manager ex[edit]

Money manager ex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. No evidence that subject of article meets notability criteria proposed at WP:SOFTWARE. Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about every single project that happens to be hosted at Sourceforge. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from here. Not all of the text has been copied, but none of it is original. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - As per copy vio rasied by Ultra Loser... Spawn Man 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salo in Space[edit]

A not notable dead webcomic, kept the first time. It had only two dozen updates and then since February, it has been pinning for the fjords. bogdan 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Join the choir invisible. Would be pushing up daisies if it hadn't been nailed to the perch the first time around. BTW, it's pining, not pinning, and if it's Ukrainian, it's pining for the steppes, no fjords in the Ukraine. The Ukranian Brown prefers to lie on its back and remain non-notable! Tubezone 08:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tubezone, I'm sure people love being corrected on every detail... ;) Spawn Man 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haaallllloooo Polly! Sorry, was just using that as an excuse to work in some gratuitous Parrot Sketch references... ;-) Tubezone 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition accepted. Alas, it had to end this way ;| - Francis Tyers · 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it has joined Francisco Franco in his valiant (and successful) attempt to remain dead. B.Wind 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. --Core desat 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming engineer[edit]

Flaming engineer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. The only source is a drinks website that solicits reader submitted recipes and shows scant evidence of editorial control, so WP:RS and WP:V are serious problems as well. Quale 07:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply non-notable. Khatru2 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've copied the recipe so I can take it to bar and see if it's as good as a Michelada, you can delete it. I have my doubts that anyone at Ryerson University really wants to take credit for this. Beer and Amaretto...? Tubezone 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the Wikibook Bartending. --Howrealisreal 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki this enjoyably post exam traditional drink. Blackpgt1994

Now Transwikied --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Jesus[edit]

Purple Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references for any claims in article despite being tagged {{unreferenced}} since June 2006. Prod removed with comment that it "isn't a neologism", which doesn't seem to address the point. Quale 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO so non-notable. Jayden54 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Linuxaurus 11:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate cake (drink)[edit]

Chocolate cake (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, the only reference given appears to be a blog, failing WP:RS. Prod removed with the comment "doing research". Quale 07:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Linuxaurus 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--John Lake 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Doom source port, which has already been done to the extent such content can be encyclopedic (which long features lists are generally not). Therefore, redirected. This outcome is most likely to be at least acceptable to most of the earlier commenters. Whether to expand or to reduce this content on Doom source port is now an editorial question. Sandstein 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZDoom[edit]

ZDoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's about a source port of Doom; but, there is no evidence it meets the notability guideline WP:SOFTWARE nor official policy WP:V and WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one of the most popular (if not the most popular) source ports of doom, over 100,000 google hits on the name, including coverage on IGN, Gamespy, sourceforge, and freshmeat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have any particular links of said coverage? All I can find is the game's name on IGN et al. (no reviews or anything), and the standard news posts on Sourceforge / Freshmeat that every project that registers there gets. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Night Gyr - Vicer 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. Although there are pages about this game on IGN, GameSpy and other websites, they are nothing more than the basic information about the game, such as a small description and some details. GameSpy hasn't even given it a GameSpy Score. WP:SOFTWARE explicitly states:
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
- Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
- Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.
Note the bolded part. So I'm going to have to go with delete. Jayden54 10:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, they were covered by PC Gamer in the print edition way back in 2000. I read it when it came out, and the story is mentioned here, but PC Gamer content isn't online so I can't give you a link to the article itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have all the PC Gamers from 2000, and the only mention of ZDoom was in a column about Doom source ports in general. ZDoom was listed as one of those ports, but was not the focus of the article, making that coverage trivial. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what trivial means here. Trivial means something like an entry in a directory, not an article specifically about a handful of programs Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they actually make comment on the thing, then it's trivial. --Simonkoldyk 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the entire article right here. It's a small sidebar column that's mostly about how Doom source ports make the game look better. Here's what they say about ZDoom:
"ZDoom. http://zdoom.notgod.com/ Includes console, jumping optional OpenGL support, and support for 'dehacked' mods like the Aliens TC"
Basically nothing we don't already know about the port. This is nothing more than a trivial mention. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EASILY passes WP:SOFTWARE. There is no question of this. --- RockMFR 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How does it "EASILY pass" WP:SOFTWARE?, you need to show proof not just you say so.--Simonkoldyk 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both IGN and GameSpot contain content for this game. GameSpot even hosts the software, which generally would be reason enough to meet WP:SOFTWARE and/or WP:GAMES (both of which are proposed notability guidelines). --- RockMFR 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or listings on software download sites., having the content on GameSpot, unless they write an article on it, its trivial; it dosen't prove notability. --Simonkoldyk 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent says otherwise. All interpretations of notability standards for games I've ever seen would point to keeping this article. --- RockMFR 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me an example of this? --Simonkoldyk 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can encourage you to go through old AfD logs if you want to see past precedent... --- RockMFR 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, ZDoom seems to be one of the first and largest projects to come from the opening of the Doom source code but I'm not sure we need a page for every Doom port though. BJ^Talk 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Simply claiming it passes WP:SOFTWARE doesn't mean it does, or that it's notable or even verifiable. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, meets WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Ter e nc e Ong 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:How does it meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria?--Simonkoldyk 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very popular and feature-rich Doom source port. BTW it's still alive. --Ysangkok 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "very popular"? Can you prove that with links to notable sources that have talked about it. --Simonkoldyk 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I beleave that the ZDoom is quite notable, because it has a lot of features, that other Doom-port haven't got. It is, as far as I know, the only Doom-port that plays Strife. Feature list --Andersersej 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because it has a lot of features that other Doom-ports don't have dosen't make it notable, you need to show how it passes WP:SOFTWARE. --Simonkoldyk 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are no claims of notability and appears mostly to be spam. Relatively little content. The only content I see is that Zdoom is an open source port of Doom with many features. (one sentence article) It seems that it would be worth mentioning it on the Doom page however. To those who want this kept I would more explictly say as others have: Clean it up, establish notability, improve references, remove the spam/features section. It does get 100K plus ghits so it may be possible to fix these problems.--Nick Y. 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
features section != spam. Phrased a little too much like an ad, but that doesn't make the thing spam. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No notablility, and no coverage from good sources. HarrisonHopkins 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom source ports, possibly merging evey info that is verifiable there. The general issue of source ports appear notable (see the cited article above), but this invidual one has not been proved so. Still, a redirect would be useful as a plausible search term. Tizio 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom source port. In fact, I'm working on merging the info (and of related articles ZDaemon, GZDoom, and the former Skulltag article) to that page. Bloodshedder 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The merging is complete, for all source port articles already on Wikipedia. ZDoom can be safely redirected to Doom source port. Bloodshedder 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom source port. I helped a bit with the rewrite of this page and I think that the information there, along with links to the corresponding info on the Doom Wiki, is more uniform, more useful, and more appropriate for an encyclopedia.--QuasarTE 04:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Doom source port Lakn 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Doom source port page dosen't make sense to move them all too, they are all non-notable, not verifable things your just putting in to one article. Still delete. --Simonkoldyk 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not notable enough for an article" does not mean the same thing as "not notable to be worthy of mention at all". Bloodshedder 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above, since ZDoom is only notable as related to the Doom source port project. --Alan Au 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

7

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancer[edit]

Technomancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is completely original research which violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fanfiction essay. Here, Google the word. Tubezone 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I knew what I would say on the AfD from the first sentence I read on this article, an essay. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank but Rewrite The term Technomancer has some usages, and as such, probably at least needs to exist as a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The best we're going to get on this topic is a non-notable neologism dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom original research .--John Lake 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose I should clarify where I think the Technomancer disambig should cover. [[First, there is GURPS Technomancer and there's also Technomancer Press, Technopathy, and possible groups such as Order of Hermes and the Technomages of Babylon 5. And that's just what I can come up with easily. Anybody else agree with disambiguating? (Current content need not be kept) FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Would have said "keep" if it had been in any way related to RL uses of the term [per FrozenPurpleCube] -- Simon Cursitor 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok...new here. My first contrib. I guess I am confused about what is definable as orginal research, even after reading the description. As pointed out, the term has been used in many publications- mostly role playing games- therefore, it is an accpeted term- it is the (my) definition that should be at issue.. But then you see my conundrum is that role playing games are made up from the imagination in most cases. I fail to see how a term in a made-up RPG can ever be accepted...but obviously, according to wikipedia's rules, that is allowed. I also have personal issues understanding the policy, since it seems that for something to be an 'accepted term' either someone on wiki has to have heard of it, or it can be googled or something. If those are the rules, those are the rules- I'm not complaining- just fail to completely understand the rationality. Let's say I write a book, and completely make up a new word. If I can reference it in a book, apparently that makes it 'wiki-able'- is what i am understanding. That makes me want to dig up that old book of sniglets from the 80's....would sniglets be rejected, if referenced from a publication? They are clearly made-up words. This is an honest question- not trying to be a smart-aleck. I don't have any vested interest in this term being on the wiki, except that some people actually follow these philosophies, and call themselves that. It is an underground subculture of sorts- a sort of modern-day religion that is very new...but since it is not referenceable, yet in books or the net, I will concede that my contrib meets OR as defined....my mistake, which i realize in hindsight. However, again since i am new here, I thought I was just *starting a page, that other people would come along in and add the GURPS defs, et al. No big deal- delete if you feel the need.Romshadow 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply the problem with your definition is that it is pretty limited to your ideas, and you did not demonstrate those ideas as shared by anyone else. That may be valid content for many places on the Web, but Wikipedia is not the place for original thought. That is expressed in WP:OR. To take your sniglet example, I don't know what they are, but if they're in a book somewhere, it's at least possible that said content would be worthy of an article (though if the book isn't all that notable, it might be best just to have the book, and not all the possible things within it). However, you shouldn't create sniglets for Wikipedia. It's like Jedi Knights. Wikipedia isn't the place for George Lucas, or anybody else to write stories about them. Now we can write about the stories with Jedi Knights in them, and have completely valid articles. Do you see the difference? In this case, you seem to have produced thoughts on Technomancers, but haven't related them to any real-world content. My suggestion if you want this article, would be to discuss them in say, the terms of the RPGs they appear in, and the other stories where they are present. If somehow, it became real-world important, then you could have something like Jedi census phenomenon. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I think an entry on Technomancy and Technomancers would be useful, as a term used in RPGs, fantasy, etc, the current version contains nothing salvageable. --HarrisX 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. A merge seems complicated but it seems to have some support. W.marsh 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of deus ex machina examples[edit]

List of deus ex machina examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Every single one of these is an item of original research literary analysis, and the list as a whole is utterly indiscriminate in scope, considering how widespread this device is. Recently closed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series, as delete. This is just as original in its research with an even more indiscriminate scope. I would like a shorter list of examples that have sources to identify each, but without sources this fails WP:OR and WP:V. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pointless and never-to-be-completed lists. Vizjim 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V (no sources, if that's even possible with an article like this), fails WP:OR and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a subjective, and thus infinite and indiscriminate, list which ipso facto contains original research and is therefore unverifiable (how's that for a collection?). No need even to merge, since the article on deus ex machinas (deii ex machina?) already names a couple. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Deus ex machina after having trimmed 80-95% of the list, I don't think anyone wants to read over 200 of these --WikiSlasher 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, without any warning, a giant zorg monster beamed down and deleted this list! Grutness...wha? 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha --WikiSlasher 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'keep though I see i shall be overruled. This is a major plot device, and notable as such, and a list of works which have them, though long, should be useful. Im not sure A-Z is the bast way to go, but rather by genre. DGG 06:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, although the point that's been raised a couple of times here is that this list is somewhat original research-y. What I know about literature studies can be written on a biscuit, but I'm not convinced that scholars would agree that each of these is a deus ex machina. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps that very statement is OR on your part--the criterion is a little slippery. :)DGG 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I disagree. If literature theorists 1, 2 and 3 all argue that some of the contents of this list are legitimate deus ex machinas, then all that remains is to hunt up citations for that and call that part of the list verifiable (what to do with said verifiable list is anyone's guess, but it's verifiable at least). If, however, the only reason that a particular deux ex machina is included here is because an editor acting on their own behalf felt that it was one, then it's Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the past now! Delete Danny Lilithborne 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as by WikiSlasher Alf photoman 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have the originator of the article pick 20 or so examples, from classic and modern fiction, merge it then lock it. 144.87.143.3 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the list should be copied to a subpage of the talk page of the main page of the topic so it can be discussed further which ones are valuable, if 1 person picks the 20 someone will scream "Hey why didn't you include that one!" and stuff. --WikiSlasher 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Per WP:IAR, a useful article that I have used several times in the past. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs)
Usefulness is not a keep argument. Lots of useful things violate WP:NOT. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have no opinion on whether this meets the guidelines for keeping. However I find this article very useful because examples are the best way to learn just what is a "Deus Ex Machina". So, it is a very useful article. As others have said above, though, it may not meet the guidelines. so I don't know.Spebudmak 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it to Talk:Deus ex machina/List of deus ex machina examples in case it gets deleted so we can extract some examples for the main article. --WikiSlasher 01:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that whatever gets included needs to be sourced, so none of these can be used as-is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into deus ex machina and remove all but the most important and significant examples. Jeff Silvers 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per WikiSlasher, 144.87.143.3, and Jeff Silvers above. --130.126.80.219 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jeff Silvers. WMMartin 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge I was the person that originally split off the list from Deus Ex Machina in the first place in order to make Deus ex Machina a better article. The problem the article had before was even if someone with some sense cut down the list to a few notable examples, people would add in their own pet examples from their favorite work of fiction. You can look at Talk:Deus_ex_machina to get some background on that discussion. I think the list page could be ok if certain guidelines were honored for any examples added to the list, such as those in the previous discussion. Regardless, I hope that the list does not get blindly merged into Deus ex machina, since that article already has a couple of very strong examples in the text. The demiurge 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't there be a comment or two (to make sure people see it) in the edit window like <--DO NOT ADD ANY EXAMPLES TO THIS ARTICLE UNLESS APPROVED BY OTHER EDITORS ON THE TALK PAGE--> and just revert anything without a source? It might be too much to ask people to keep track of every change though I guess. Maybe a strict rule of "no source, no mention in article" might be a good idea. --WikiSlasher 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I don't mind if the article is kept, but then all disputed examples need to be shown the door. --WikiSlasher 08:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, So because a list can't be completed we should just throw away all the information gathered? This list should be kept, the list is not entirely pointless and wikipedia is a collection of information which may regard fiction, so this list should be acceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.212.221 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATF Hire Group[edit]

ATF Hire Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prolific link spamming Richard W.M. Jones 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The users below have created a complex set of redirects designed to raise the Page Rank of this company for various phrases, including: Security Fencing, Deck guard, Deck Guardrail Australia, Fencing Hire, Deck Guardrail Group, Australian Temporary Fencing, Deck Height Safety, Aotearoa Temporary Fencing and more. They all eventually point to this page.
The following users are involved: User talk:FrankyTheMan, User talk:BillyBob79, User talk:TraceyMcDonald6767, User talk:Sd85478547, User talk:218.215.3.179, User talk:202.86.214.14. All these users have been only, or largely, involved in editing just ATF-related pages and spam terms.
Full list of linkspam redirects: Special:Whatlinkshere/ATF_Hire_Group

Delete, and redirect pages too. Richard W.M. Jones 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as spam. MER-C 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:SPAM and adds nothing to Wikipedia. The company itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to be included. Jayden54 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, spam. Ter e nc e Ong 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sneaky spam. Azate 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Booh to spam. --Lijnema 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three ~~sockpuppets~~ (did I say that?!?) users who have, suspiciously, only edited this page and ATF-related pages, have been adding keep votes here. The users are: Special:Contributions/Charlie_Xu_1975, Special:Contributions/IanThompson1 and Special:Contributions/TotalWikiFreak. Luckily these ~~linkspammers~~ (not again ...) users are too dumb to edit this page, but have put their comments on this page's talk page. Richard W.M. Jones 09:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the result is delete, then someone needs to check the edits the spammers and the sockpuppets have made, since the "what links here" page might not give a complete list anymore. --Lijnema 12:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Eternity[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Kim Eternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This minor porn actress does not fulfil any of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), and as such falls foul of WP:BIO. Vizjim 09:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why are porn star bios always deleted? I think there are too many christian zealots tearing pages out of history on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator MacReady (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2006

I voted Delete, and I'm not a "christian zealot" at all, and in fact welcome any kind of pornography related articles, and have worked on a few. But this pornstar simply doesn't pass the notability guidelines to be included, because she has done nothing notable. No awards, no shoots in well-known magazines and nothing noteworthy in her niche. Jayden54 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I nominated the article, and I'm an atheist. Vizjim 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO as she doesn't seem to have any awards, hasn't appeared in any well-known magazines and isn't particularly notable in her niche. Jayden54 10:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject has appeared in several issues of Voluptuous, a major pornographic periodical over the past several years. --CJ Marsicano 14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the criteria call for a bit more than "has appeared in several issues". Specifically, "2) Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." I note that Voluptuous magazine's entry is also being disputed, and nobody has produced evidence for its notability as yet. Vizjim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she has appeared in over 100 porn films, which does fall into WP:PORNBIO. Check her iafd profile. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hey, who went and changed the criteria? >:^( Don~~^MEGĂ~~|~~60645~~ 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Never mind, it's under Dubious methods of establishing notability. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actuually number of films if under 100 is there. Vegaswikian 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, check her afdb profile. She has done over 100 movies. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria outlined by WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:PORNBIO 12 years in the business is unique. Vegaswikian 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tonybuzan 13:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — Tonybuzan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep She's notable within her niche (busty black porn stars), so she fulfills criterion 6 of WP:PORNBIO. 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. She's well-known within her genre, satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Xihr 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please notable in the busty black niche and meets pornbio too erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than 100 movies, notable for having large real breasts. so she passes at least criterion 6 of PORNBIO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed: this is a redirect, not an article, so it belongs at RFD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruff n' Tumble (Computer Game)[edit]

Ruff n' Tumble (Computer Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The disamiguation in parantheses is unneeded because the article (without disambig) didn't exist. And it is wrongly capitalized anyway. Michael Drüing 09:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a fairly unnecessary article, and there are no internal links so I don't see why it can't be deleted. If others don't agree it should be deleted, I suggest we simply leave the redirect in place. Jayden54 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Saperstone[edit]

Jeff Saperstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article essentially is a vanity piece. While the subject may be a fine reporter, he has not achieved enough fame or notoriety to merit a Wiki entry. Burghboy80 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources or references to show notability, so fails WP:V, and probably fails WP:BIO as well. Looking at the history, it probably fails WP:COI too. Jayden54 10:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayden got it right. RampageouS 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales. Sandstein 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Cargelligo Central School[edit]

Lake Cargelligo Central School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable school in Australia Vicer 10:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable and no sources or references whatsoever. Jayden54 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As this is a high school (it states that it goes up to Grade 12), it automatically qualifies. This is a standard known basis for inclusion. Nlsanand 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - doesn't the school have to be notable in some way? Otherwise every high school in the world would be able to get an article. Jayden54 15:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Jayden points out, there is no such guideline that "automatically qualifies" high schools. WP:SCHOOL has kicked around a bit but is not policy. →Bobby← 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I am saying that every high school automatically qualifies. At least, that's what I've noticed the policy to be in a bunch of these AfD debates. Notability is theoretically established by the fact that it is a high school. Nlsanand 05:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs cleanup, but with a little tweaking it can be a fine article. I'll do a little tinkering now. →Bobby← 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm having a bit of trouble finding good info on the school at the moment since I'm at work and I have limited access. At the moment I would recommend that we wait a while to see if anyone comes along with some notable alumni or events to spruce the article up. Keep in mind that it's only been around for a couple of weeks, and the original author might be planning on adding much more. I would also propose thinking about a possible merge to NSW. We could create a new section for education and start collecting school data. Just a thought. →Bobby← 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales where it is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Does not appear more notable than any other high school. Stammer 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to school district, if possible. Otherwise, delete. This article needs more than cleanup (there's precious little to clean up) - it needs information. It's also been my experience that few people who create a school stub ever come back later to add more. D enni ^talk 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mate this is about an Australian school. DXRAW 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? JoshuaZ 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We dont have school districts. DXRAW 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks, that's a good point. Then it should be merged with the locality as some others have discussed. JoshuaZ 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales or school district. I have come up with a couple of references to it namely a ranking as the top school in its region in the 2005 HSC [13] and a visit by the Governor of NSW Marie Bashir in 2002 but nothing that would warrant a standalone article under the relevant guideline. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Capitalistroadster. JROBBO 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales. Despite the fact that it's a high school, there is not enough meaningful content at this point. Redirect will allow history to be retained and allow for expansion to a full article in the future as sources and additional information become available. Alansohn 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've added a sourced note about the school being part of a program to help students from low income backgrounds but the school is merely mentioned on a list of 74 schools that are part of the program. There really isn't anything else I can find to say about the school. JoshuaZ 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales until it can be expanded on its own. Silensor 07:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DXRAW 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason for that opinion? JoshuaZ 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 20:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It would help if you explained what it was. JoshuaZ 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, does not seem to meet WP:SCHOOLS3, but probably worth a mention in the local town's article. Lankiveil 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Merge per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons iven aboveDGG 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The persuasive argument that the article fails WP:WEB has not been adequately addressed by those arguing otherwise. RockMFR's merger suggestion on account of the site's tools being notable would imply that content on the tools be merged, not on the site. The site, at any rate, is already mentioned at Utopia (online game). If anyone strongly wants to merge more content there, the deleted text is available on request. Sandstein 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Temple[edit]

Utopia Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a non-notable fan forum. No assertion of notability is made, no reliable sources are included, it fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom: definitely fails WP:WEB and WP:V as well. Jayden54 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, only assertion of notability is user count. MER-C 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per MER-C. --- RockMFR 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep/merge to Utopia (online game) per the notability of the tools created and hosted by the site. --- RockMFR 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep if you are going to delete this article, POINT OUT EXACTLY which points that it fails on. I cannot see that UtopiaTemple "definitely fails" certain criterias on links that you have provided. IMO, you have clearly misunderstood, and to an fact, underestimated the influence of this website on the Utopia, in particular tools used for the game. NeoDeGenero 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - as others have stated, it is THE tool/accessory for the game. NeoDeGenero 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fails every criterion of WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster--RWR8189 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although I have participated in editing this article, I feel that the manner in which most of it is written makes it sound more like a fan site to Utopia Temple than an actual encyclopedic article. Please consider the following (which I also mentioned in Utopia Temple's talk page) from What Wikipedia is not / Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." --- Starfriend 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, rewrite: In Utopia, nearly everyone uses Angel from Utopia Temple simply because they are at such a huge disadvantage if they don't. While I agree the forum itself is not-notable, the community as a whole at Utopia Temple is very notable because it's widely held that the Angel software is what keeps Utopia as the top web-based MMOG. To delete this article out of notability is to delete the largest community in the largest web-based MMOG. Utopianheaven 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Judge Certification Program[edit]

Beer Judge Certification Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG It includes no sources and no references and should be deleted. Mikebe 11:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails to mention the source of the information it contains.Patto1ro 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This article was prod'ed and prod2'd. Both tags were removed and this AfD was listed, although the tag wasn't added to the article. I've done that now. Note, however, that "BJCP" redirects to "Beer Judge Certification Program", which explains the slightly odd syntax of the AfD tag at the article. I've assumed that the nominator intended to nominate the article and not the redirect. No opinion on the AfD itself, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed to reference article instead of redirect. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. As far as I can tell, the only body set up to standardize judging at brewing contests. Several of the larger beer brewing software applications use BJCP style guidelines. Competition program is shared with theAmerican Homebrewers Association, who also "enthusiastically support" them. Some news and other references: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Further, check out the site for virtually ANY brewfest or brewers' guild in the U.S. and you'll find most competitions judged by BJCP-certified beer judges and many members touting their certification. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all relevant to the WG:ORG requirements. Secondly, the links you provide are for home-brewing, not for the BJCP. Thirdly, why not just move some of the information to a home-brewing article? This article serves no purpose. Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Published sources are essential in determining notability. While a few of the blog entries are irrelevant, the newspaper articles listed are relevant per WP:N. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable. AFD nomination is part of a crusade by two editors to re-write all of the beer articles in order to bring them in line with a website which is run by one of the editors (note url). In edit summaries, they call BJCP beer style standards "fictitious". Another relevant conversation. I actually support having correctly sourced style guidelines from multiple sources. But I do not support the deletion of guidelines and articles because two editors disagree with them. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we argue this with facts rather than personal attacks. I've actually given up trying to correct the many errors I find in the beer articles because of this kind of response. Just check my recent contributions: most have just removed vandalism or added references. As I said before, I have more constructive things to do with my time than get involved in petty arguments like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patto1ro (talk • contribs) .
What did I say that was false? — goethean ॐ 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are making personal attacks, and ignoring the question of validity of the article. Secondly, the question is not whether the attacks were false or not, the question is why you made them. And, although this has nothing to do with the proposed deletion of this article, the other editor was and is correct that the Märzen article is mostly inaccurate. If you are interested in accuracy, look here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rzen_%28Bier%29 Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 8 print references, including the Wall Street Journal. Clearly a notable organization. Edison 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take an article about an improbable idea, allege that deletion of that article is part of some crusade or censorship and, when asked for reliable sources, throw up a lot of entries to blogs. We've all seen how this ends, right? Well, actually, it should end differently in this case. In addition to the WSJ piece that Edison found (I'm still on the fence about Zymurgy), there are an article whose main subject is the organization and an article that focuses on describing the Program's course of study in the Anchorage Press, a piece in the Baker City Herald that spends several paragraphs discussing the organization and two books that appear to provide some discussion as well. Thus, Keep. JChap2007 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That first Press article is now quoted in the intro to the article; that now explicitly meets the requirements of WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a crusade. If the article is backed up by reputable references, I have no problem with it being retained. I was arguing against the article as it stood. Adding proper refernces is the correct way to defend its retention.Patto1ro 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Unreferenced can be added to articles to which references need to be added. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on a citation given here which I have now included in the intro, organization has press coverage. It's also been mentioned in books by independent authors, so it satisfies WP:ORG handily. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though originally unsourced, the article now has multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. Sounds notable to me! --Jayron 32 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the now included non-trivial sources. Original deletion reason now void. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, notable, what else is needed? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- primary standards organization for United States homebrewing, and widely referenced in the hobby press. What, you want them to be as influential as CAMRA before they're included? Haikupoet 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haikupoet, and in response to some of the earlier comments. DGG 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going out on a limb here, and I fully expect this to be challenged at WP:DRV (see y'all there). This has already been through one AfD, which closed sans consensus. The issue then was reliable sources. The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina[edit]

Ali Sina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Zakir Naik.
Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, the article should not have had the prod template used by User:72.75.93.131 as that specifically is used for article that have not previously been up as AfD. Are the comments within the "prod" proposal relevant as linked to above or do they give an undue weight to what User:72.75.93.131 says ? Ttiotsw 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not really notable. We can evaluate the lines that are used to establish some sort of notability in his article:

An Asia Times (online-only newspaper) editorial mentions him/his website in two lines. Does that really make him notable?

He has been mentioned on Frontpage Magazine's website, a highly conservative source. The magazine itself isn't particularly notable nor is there enough material in the article to write about him. The symposium in which he participates includes several other non-notable people.

He has been mentioned on WorldNetDaily. This is, again, a highly conservative blog, and the article that mentions him is unattributed to any author; it is unlikely to be a reliable source considering that.

He is the author of a non-published book. That doesn't make him notable either.

He is the owner of a website that itself is non-notable. That doesn't make him notable.

All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates. There simply isn't enough reliable third-party material about the subject to write a good article about him, which is further an indication of the lack of notability of this person. Azrak 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is his website not notable? --Matt57 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it particularly notable? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, how exactly being "highly conservative" makes the sources mentioning him unreliable? What does the political leaning of a source has to do with credibility? Had he been mentioned in a "highly liberal" source would you then consider him being notable? 80.179.36.5 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the bias of the source is. It matters if the articles are attributed to a writer or not. The articles are unattributed. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A website that has been banned by Pakistan's IPS's is surely notable.--Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we would then be able to say that each and every blog on blogspot is notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs werent targetted individually. FaithFreedom.org has been targetted specifically by Pakistan's ISP's and has been banned there. Now you're saying any random blog XYZ is as notable as FaithFreedom because they're also banned? That doesnt make sense, sorry. --Matt57 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the logic you applied. Not I. You would be hard-pressed to prove that every website mentioned here is notable just because it's banned by Pakistani ISP's. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being banned by a country's IPS can be ONE of the reasons why a website may be notable. Another reason is that the website ranks in the top 30,000 according to Alexa. Another reason why his website is notable is that it seems all Wikipedias who edit on the subject of Islam know about this website. If all of them know and almost all do, his website is notable enough. Everything else combined makes him and his website notable. As I said, people who want this page to be deleted belong to the group that disagrees with his opinions. And again if he has caused so much discussion on Wikipedia, he's DEFINITELY notable. In summary Ali Sina is much more popular than the average college professor and hence is notable.--Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not really notable

Nobody is sure that this person really exist. As his existence cannot be proved how can be he is notable. --Mak82hyd 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader is pretty notable and I'm sure he doesn't exist (right?!). I'd also like to see you either prove the existence of [[[God]] or claim he isn't notable. Rune X2 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because an article has turned into a soapbox (which is temporary anyway), does not mean the article should be nominated for deletion. Revert Wars also do not imply that an article should be deleted. In case of a bio, the only rationale for deletion can be non-notablility. Here are some reasons why he is notable in my opinion:

Ali Sina passes the Alternate "Professor test" at WP:BIO, which says: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.". The following two points support this:
He passes the "Search engine" test: His name comes up 80,000 times, not counting the results on his own websites and this one. Search engine popularity is one method of the Alternate tests of Notability (see WP:BIO).

His website is within the top 30,000 websites according to alexa.

So he is definitely more well-known than the average college professor and so according to WP:BIO he is definitely notable and so should not be deleted.--Matt57 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Bogus argument --- that "test" only applies to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ... is Ali Sina a college professor? Where does Ali Sina teach, so we can compare him with other academics? ... I mean, I've published more than the average college professor, but that doesn't automatically make me notable! —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not only for college professors. Read it carefully! It says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor". If the test was for college professors only, they wouldnt say that. The term "average college professor" is used as a meter to gauge popularity. --Matt57 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page (under Alternative tests) for the rebuttal. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mate, read the definition properly it says an individual, which means a person and how do u know he exists do have any proof? have u seen him. he is an entity created for some hate purpose. think open minded rather than being islamophobic. 88.108.181.18 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is an entity created for hate purposes? Are'nt you being anti-Islam-ophobic yourself? --Matt57 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the proposed policy only applies to academics. Ali Sina is not an academic as far as we know. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy does not only apply to Academics. The Professor Test is a sort of "Meter" to gauge the popularity of any person. That can even apply to a homeless man if he's become that popular. This point was also raised by 72.75.93.131. See the Talk page of this article. --Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Azrak. This person is solely an internet personality. He is not known anywhere else. A large amount of Google hits, therefore, isn't necessarily indicative of notability. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not only known on the internet. His testimony of leaving Islam is present in Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Plus lets remember the fact that he was threatened with lawsuits and death threats. Also, he's debated with famous figures of Islam like Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. The fact that he has a pseudonym does not mean he's not notable. All these things together reflect that he is a notable ex-muslim. --Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I forgot about his mention in that book. Though debating with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri doesn't necessarily make him notable. Montazeri has spoken to thousands of people in his life, but that doesn't make them all notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is non notable and his existence is not proved. he might not exist. so how can we have a article on a person who has not been seen by anybody. 88.108.181.18 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: I suspect this IP user is user:Mak82hyd who has already voted above. New IP's should be discarded for these votes. --Matt57 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral-link to outcome on Zakir Naik There does seem to be an effort to censor content from some factions of this afd (especially looking at the previous afd). It is true however that the article itself stinks of being a soap box. I would mark it with clean up tags. She does appear to be a contraversial figure with much written about her in many places. Certainly seems to be one of the more notable critics of Islam although from a more firey than academic bent. Most of the english language coverage does seem to be internet based and often end up back at her web site. The extraordinary level of contraversy however lends quite a bit to the notability claim. Among the 100,000 plus ghits "roughly" a third were about her and many of them were critical to hateful. She seems to have pissed off a large portion of the world. I'd say that makes her notable.--Nick Y. 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is male, not female. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt matter if its male or female. Infact non-biased votes are the best becuase they can see the situation objectively. Plus they made good points. --Matt57 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article needs wikifying, but the subject is notable, as the amount of adverse criticism indicates. and as the amount of debate above illustrates. If we can argue so much about him, he's notable. To me, a very obvious instance of what we want in WP. DGG 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I voted a conditional keep at the first nomination. I wanted the article to follow wikipedia standards but there was no single enhancement whatsoever. There are more than 100 sources and all of them refer to his/their own site. Unbelieveable! his (if he's one real person indeed) notability is so highly questionable. I also have BIG doubts about the involvement of Ali Sina or Ali Sinas in the article. They are campaigning for edit warring and they come all together from a few Anti-Islam forums. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I considered delete in one of the first VfDs (is this really only the second?) because I didn't think he was notable. However, I think anyone realizing the trends of Wikipedia over the last year or two should realize that notability standards are dropping. He may be less popular than most internet memes but we're even allowing pretty much any book published (even by relatively NN press) have an article. Is Ali Sina notable? Not particularly... but, look at Wikipedia standards... and compared to them I think the answer is he's notable enough. This and the Naik deletion seem like bickering to me... I don't mean the nominator. His intentions seem noble enough to me... I just think that we've gone too far down the road of inclusion to get rid of either Ali Sina or Naik. gren グレン 10:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article offers valuable info IP's first edit— 72.83.152.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete This person does not exist.how can we have his biography. 84.9.233.19 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
since when was an AfD a "vote"? ITAQALLAH 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - just a terminology issue so it is not "VOTES" but "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.". Matt57 is highlighting suspicions regarding multiple recommendations of what he feels is a IP sock puppet. Ttiotsw 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete He is no academic. He is someone like me and you. There is no reason why an *encyclopedia* should have a page for him. --Aminz 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um yea, unfortunately, muslims like you and infidels like me dont have a website that ranks in the top 30,000, or have 80,000 hits on their name in google, are prospective authors of a book and have their testimony included in Ibn Warraq's book. I guess he is like us after all. --Matt57 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep . The sheer hatred and bigotry that he engenders in others makes him notable and also make it wise of him to be somewhat untracable: his Pseudonymity is not grounds for deletion. The google hits also help his notablility. I've done a few edits to this page, some stick and other get reverted. I don't like my edits reverted on any page as I feel I research each edit reasonably well but I'm happy to admit I am wrong when I'm wrong but with the reverts done to my edits on this page I don't feel I'm wrong. Even if it is proven later that he is simply a meme then I feel he represents an archetype of an apostate muslim - thats notable. Ttiotsw 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Ali Sina is a highly notable founder of Faith Freedom International, which states on its web site that it is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims whose goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity[25]--CltFn 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep With a review of sources, this article has the potential to provide very valuable information. The very fact that so many pro-muslim vandals are around signifies the importance of this person.

Comment: Nominator, you said: "All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates." Remember that some people are smart and make sure news articles don't disappear when links go dead by keeping copies on their own pages. The location where articles are stored are not relevant. Who wrote them is. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is about a person whose real name we do not know, we do not know if he exists or not. He (supposed to) run hate websites and write there. People who hate Islam use him as reference on wikipedia Islamic articles. What degrees he had? We have no idea. We live in a world where every hater of Islam is appreciate on wikipedia and outside it. No one cares if he use Quran Ayats out-of-context or if he really exist. Shame!. --- ALM 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per CltFn's comments. -- Karl Meier 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is that even his real name??? Wikipidian 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He seems to be an important person, has also written a book. His website has been banned in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That makes him very notableOutsider2810 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting how almost everyone who wants him deleted belong to the group of people who disagree with his views. Looks like this is going to be a no-consensus again and so the article will stay. --Matt57 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per everyone above. Peace, please. Arrow740 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per Szvest This person's notability at one end, but this article has become a ground for gross violation of WP:RS, which says: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." And there seems very little hope to improve the article with abiding all these policies. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think that the issue of "notability" doesn't apply since there are tons of articles on wiki about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets. As for the soapbox issue: If there is edit-warring or inappropriate editing going on in the article, it can be dealt with according to wiki guidelines and policy. It has been long-established that POV issues in the article are not the basis for an article's deletion. I agree that there is some suspicious/bad faith nom stuff going on, all the argument's put forth center on his views etc, it wouldn't surprise me if the delete votes belong to people who share an opposition to his views like Matt57 said. Baristarim 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is an example of Wikipedia being used for getting more visitors. Its deletion will do more good to Wikipedia than lot of editors wasting time on reverting/correcting the advertizing campaigns for the site of a (fictional?) person. --Soft coder^Talk 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fortunately it is not the case that all people who claim to be ex-Muslims are liars. Arrow740 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFortunately, all who claim to be ex-muslims are so ignorant of Islam , that calling them an ex-muslim sounds like "propagating a lie".Not to mention their levels of hate & phobia . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Svest and Azrak. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: what matt said.--D-Boy 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Is one sure if this is a single person or multiple persons with assumed names publishing a website MerryJ-Ho 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 'His' website is notable given the Alexa rankings. Questions about existence of such a person may be genuine but they are certainly no grounds for deletion of this entry. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete no education, an article with only linkes to himself... i might have missed it, but were is the third party source that gives notability`? TerrorStorm had 300 000 google hits and was deleted as NN film, since it was a internet only film, considering that 80 000 seems totaly non-notable. 30 000 Alexa rating = notable? Do we really want 30 000 webpages here? Prisonplanet was deleted as non-notable, and it had far higher Alexa ranking, round 10 000 if i am not wrong. --Striver 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is a self created, self sustained myth. With no face, no education, no credibility, no decency ....no nothing . The article copies his own views about himself . He also sends his worshipers to keep this article , his well known friends/clones include CltFn & Karl Meir . The only reason this article is kept is to increase his site's hitrate . Is wikipedia open for marketing ?? F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FaithFreedom has a forum with hundreds of thousands of posts. The site itself is often linked to by other sites. The website is definitely notable. That makes an article on the owner worth having. Weather the name is real or a pseudonym, is really immaterial – except that if such doubts exists it should be noted in the article. Rune X2 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Firstly because he's anonymous, secondly anyone can send an email to the pentagon/whitehouse/state department/president of the US or any other country for that matter and claim to have 'debated' when they get a reply. He's not-notable. A simple search on google trends for "Ali Sina" will verify this [26], and since some people want to link this AfD with the Zakir Naik Article, just take a look at the people searching for Zakir Naik compared to Steve Ballmer [27]. Anyway, coming back to the article, I think it worthless enough to be deleted, and create a seperate faithfreedom article if that site is popular. Why not make articles about users that have 10000+ edits on wikipedia then (just for reference). thestick 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many forums in Indian Express online for example where they post their links - like Want to find the truth (?) on Islam ..Click www.faithfree***.com.In short..spamming.MerryJ-Ho

Keep for all good reasons stated above, especially by Matt57 72.136.43.94 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~anonymous 09:10, 4 December 2006 Eastern Time[reply]

Keep though perhaps Merge with the faithfreedom article. Notable personality (even if through a nom de plume) like Ibn Warraq and others. He uses a pseudonym to avoid death threats (unlike poor Irshad Manji). The fact that his name is unknown is not enough reason to delete the article.His only association is with faithfreedom so perhaps merge both articles. Hkelkar 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expected,seeing your voting patterns MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, I'm going with Keep. I think it's important that the tone of the article be as close to NPOV as possible, and I hope interested parties will monitor this. If this means lots of rewriting, frequent edits and reverts I don't mind, so long as everyone involves assumes good faith and acts as constructively as they can. Debate is healthy, and this guy does appear notable enough. WMMartin 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to assert notability.Baka man 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expected,seeing your voting patterns. MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TROLL. Also I voted keep at the other dude as well. Nobody needs your fundywatching either.Baka man 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alexa rankings are among the most controversial methods of website measurements.Working as a Webmaster of an Industry Magazine, I have tested and discarded Alexa as an accurate tool.MerryJ-Ho 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How come? If thats so, why is Yahoo #1 and Wikipedia #12? --Matt57 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, even discounting problematic "votes". That goes for the rewrite and cleanup tags, too, however - those stay. --Core desat 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik[edit]

Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Ali Sina..
Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakir Naik. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though the article is a problem magnet. There are some good sources on his notability, like [28] from 2003, [29] from 2005 and [30] from 2006. Mereda 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, he's obviously "world-famous in Pakistan and India" (at least in the English language press.) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this article is more of a battleground. Moreover the "His Views" part is no where according to Wikipedia standards, citations are not verifiable, also most of the article is quoted out of context proving a certain POV which is not neutral, good or bad depends upon who you ask, but atleast not neutral. Akeeq 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral right now.~~ Is there any substantial coverage by reliable third-party sources on this person? I could find none on first review. If no such sources are provided, delete. Sandstein 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources found by Mereda indicate notability. Still needs WP:NOR/WP:RS cleanup, of course. Sandstein 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After doing a Google search, there seem to be some third-party sources about him, but none that can be easily considered reliable. Azrak 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very famous atleast to a third of world population. he had very successful big debates and he works for universal brotherhood which is very good for humanity. Mak82hyd 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article is very well written leading me to believe that he might be notable. But all the references and external links are from blogs, youtube and secondary sites. Google News just gives me two hits, [31]. If anyone can provide references from newspapers or scholarly publications, I'll change my vote to Keep. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the three news sources I cited above are in line with WP:RS. What do others think? --Mereda 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It depends which version you read ... it flip-flops every few hours because of the revert war ... some versions are obviously written by an English as a second language editor. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for previous nomination. IMO blatant example of anti-Muslim bias. Stammer 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very notable in South Asia. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with a complete re-write and re-format. he is notable enough, but the "article" is just a war zone right now. I can't think of any wikipedia policy that hasn't been ignored in it! --khello 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but can be made nuetral I feel there are more anti -muslim bias written. as far as his notably is concerned u can check the links given by mereda above. 88.108.181.18 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral-link to outcome on Ali Sina Very similar to Ali Sina above except of the opposite political bent. I would suggest to the admin that the two be considered together since there is clearly strong factions trying to afd and edit each other out of existance in wikispace. This would cancel a large number of teh votes since they are based on politcal bias. This one also needs cleanup tags. These type of articles are a real problem. I think they need more of a heavy handed and quick admin with superpowers to bring them to the quality of an encyclopedia. Both could be dramatically shortened and perhaps protected.--Nick Y. 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That protection wouldnt do anything. These controversial topics are forever undergoing revert wars. Its ridiculous to give vandalism powers to anyone new who comes to Wikipedia. Just one example is Mak82kyd, who started to vandalize both of these articles (I will say that because of him, these articles were nominated for deletion, because he reverted the Deletion requester's good edits on Zakir Naik so much so that he nominated them for Deletion - this is the truth behind these two Deletion requests). Mak82hyd also voted twice for the deletion of Ali Sina - his writing style is similiar and his IP is similiar to what he has used before. At one point, he proceeded to delete huge amounts of information on Ali Sina while saying he didnt know he had deleted stuff. Currently, Wikipedia has no policies at all for dealing with vandals who jump into Wikipedia and start destroying articles with their own agendas. There is no mechanism to protect such articles from editors who wont stop taking part in revert wars. The 3RR rule does little. This is equivalent to allowing someone to terrorize Wikipedia. Its stupid to give such powers to vandals. There's a real need for a new kind of protection.--Matt57 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. There are, however, mechanisms to get vandals and even counterproductive editors banned for longer periods of time but they take a while. The reason they take so long is to be fair, however it is clear to me that certain spaces in wikipedia need a stronger sheriff that is less concerned with fairness and more concerned with order. Editors would need to tread lightly in these designated areas. I think it may be more productive to bring these articles to the arbiration commitee than to afd, even though it may be a burdensome process. These afds are likely to result in nothing.--Nick Y. 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete : If article can be converted to the wiki entry on Jerry Falwell, it might still be saved. But pro-Naik editors seem hellbent on whitewashing controversial viewpoints. --Punekar 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Very Negative) - From the lastest edit to the article, the section on Osama bin Laden has the following ...

Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden. [2]

The introductory screen for the video linked to the citation for that quote has the text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik at the bottom of the screen (circled in red) ... does anyone else see that as a WP:COI problem? I mean, isn't the subject advertising that they have a Wikipedia article in order to gain verisimilitude (if not notability and/or notoriety)? —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and when did a long-winded video soundbyte of the subject pontificating that's been posted on YouTube or Google Video become a credible 3rd part source? (Besides which, not everyone has a high-speed connection to be able to view them ... see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided if you are unclear on the concept.) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'keep if only because the bias against the subjecs expressed in the above is evident. He is a notable commentator , like it or not. DGG 06:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep just like on Ali Sina... and I hope these AfDs will just go away. gren グレン 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep query motive of nomminator: series of cut'n'paste afds with little specificity (is used as soapbox? which guideline says that makes for afd? if anything it's grounds for lock article). even if this is not some sort of pov campaign, this pro-forma approach to afd noms doesn't deserve to be taken seriously ⇒ bsnowball 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is very famous debater of comparative religion and he exist in real life...lol 84.9.233.19 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would question though what the heck this nonsense edit by user:72.75.93.131 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Warraq&diff=91182779&oldid=90180972 actually means. I'm very suspicious of anything user:72.75.93.131 says now. Check their talk page history. 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we either take all (even obscure) religious scholars or none, if our credibility is attacked everywhere we should not expose us to attack about our neutrality Alf photoman 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Strong Keep, No, I mean it, I love this guy. Geologically speaking he's about as relevant to planet earth as my belly button fluff but I leave my idealogy at the door when I log-on so he feels notable and notability is simply a feeling with guidelines. I'd also like to say that it would be amazing to see his MP3 Playlists; he must go down like a ton of bricks at parties, boom, boom. (revised as someone mentioned bacon and wifeswapping) Ttiotsw 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an article is being used as a soapbox it should be fixed and protected from abuse, rather than deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of Pakistanies are real fan of him, inside Pakistan and outside it. Notable enough for me. As oppose to Ali Sina he exist and we know him as a real person. He speaks live many time and meet people. Not some imaginary person with imaginary name like Ali Sina. --- ALM 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - not again. There was resounding consensus from previous AFD, Dr Naik is very notable and his biography an important addition to wiki. Wikipidian 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This has already been resolved before, just about a month ago. The consensus was to keep it.Outsider2810 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep he is very famous in some regions. and i think we've been through a consensus to keep before. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dont understand how stupid Wikipedia can be, letting someone nominate this article for the 2nd time when just 20 days ago, it had been nominated and the result was a definite keep: "The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)" . This just shows there's something wrong with the policies here. Requesting a needless AFD is disruptive. What now, do you all want me to nominate this for a 3rd time after 20 days now, huh? What do you think, everyone?? Lets do another nomination and keep doing this every 20 days - right? What should have been done is the AFD should have been removed and the nominator being WARNED for disrupting Wikipedia. Thats the policy that should be here. Instead we are here, discussing it again like people with short term memory loss. What is this, a display of our egos? Our power to nominate something for Deletion and then voting (or opinions) for this as well? Thats what it is. Wikipedia's policies regarding this are immature and undeveloped and its sad that no one can see this. If the policies are wrong and no one can see that, then there's something very wrong in Wikipedia and not with just this but some other things as well.--Matt57 13:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Yes, he is quiet famous scholar, he talks of universal brotherhood, he is peace loving, he deserves to be here.Will it be nice if a well known scholar in this present world and Wikipedia does not have his page ?

Strong keep, if only for his brilliant comments on the undeniable link between pork and promiscuity. Wife-swapping, anyone? I've got bacon! Hornplease 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was kept just three weeks earlier, per Hornplease, I dont see how he woul become less notable now. ITs till full of POVBaka man 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I would like to see better and more generally neutral references. WMMartin 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. utcursch | talk 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prechter[edit]

Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the subject and their self-published books (New Classics Library) and newletter (Elliott Wave Theorist). Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's publications. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject engaged in revert edit wars that attempt to obfuscate the affiliation between the subject and the source of the citations. There is no credible, third-party verification of the subject's notability. See the discussion page.
Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.
Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified KEEP

I'm sorry to say that I'm one of the people considered to be edit-warring on this page, but I don't think that is just in that I've always attempted to add things and not delete.
It is difficult to say that Prechter is not notable, since he has had an article dedicated to him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and all the following make significant reference to him (I can add several articles from the Financial Times as well - he is also notable in Europe)
^ ”The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck” by Colvin, Geoffrey, Fortune; 10/16/2000, Vol. 142 Issue 9, p84-84, 1p, 2c
^ "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late" by Power, William, The Wall Street Journal, Aug 19, 1993
^ “Lost Sheep Investors Find New Bo-peeps” by Kevin G. Salwen, The Wall Street Journal, July 28, 1989
^ “Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating” by Robert McGough, The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1997
^ ”Game Over” by Kurson, Ken, Esquire; Feb99, Vol. 131 Issue 2, p44, 4p
^ ”Advisory Newsletters Don't Seem to Be Providing Quality Assistance Traders Seek from Them” by Angrist, Stanley W, The Wall Street Journal, Feb 5, 1990
^ “Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears” by Constance Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, Dec 27, 1988
^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989
^ “Lend Half an Ear to This Doomsayer” by Barker, Robert, Business Week; 7/22/2002 Issue 3792, p90-90, 1p, 2c
The trouble with this article is that Rgfolsom (Robert Folsom), who confirms that he works for Prechter, refuses to let this material into the article. I don't know how to make Folsom not revert this material - perhaps it is impossible. But I think that the article should be kept, if material from reputable publications is allowed. Of course if only material straight from Prechter is allowed, then the article should be deleted.
qualified keep Smallbones 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response to 72.75.93.131 below moved to TALK page
Moved comment from Punanimal to TALK page Smallbones 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Smallbones. Edit warring is not a deletion grounds. I tend to agree that promotional links should not be included. If it can be confirmed (the link given is broken) that the man had a NYT best seller and was mentioned on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, he seems to be at least borderline notable as a stock analyst. If the man's predictions got this much commentary, he almost surely merits an article. Argument about the content of the page should be taken to a dispute resolution process; it ain't a deletion matter. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the guy is not infrequently cited by writers for publications such as Barron's. (But I agree: be merciless with linkspamming, and don't let Prechter's people control the article.) --Orange Mike 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (negative) Let's look at the first paragraph, where notability should be established ...

Prechter has authored or edited 14 books, including Conquer the Crash, a New York Times bestseller.[1] He has also published monthly financial commentary in the Elliott Wave Theorist since 1979.[2] In recent years Prechter has supported the study of socionomics, a theory about the dynamics of human social behavior. [3]

[1] is a blocked website (you have to register to read the review) ... BTW, is having one of his 14 books on the list for only one week sufficient for WP:BIO?

[2] is a reference to his self-published monthly newsletter, Elliott Wave Theorist - hardly a 3rd party claim of notability; it's just support for the assertion that he's been writing his own tip-sheet for almost 30 years.

[3] is a reference to his book, published by his own company, New Classics Library - again, very WP:COI.

If someone should include Real Citations (with ISBNs) for that list of books he has authored, we'd see that they are self-published as well ... I could write a dozen books and start my own company to publish them ... does that mean that if I can get a periodical with a Wikipedia article to write a review of one of them, then I can have a biographical article, too?

So far, the only 3rd party references for him (including those mentioned above by Smallbones) appear to demonstrate that his noteriety (not the same thing as notability) stems from his failures as a stock prognosticator. Other than that, he's not very remarkable. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies — only 9 of those 14 books are published by his company, New Classics Library ... I should have said "they are mostly self-published." ;-) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Looks like I'll be the first editor who actually bothers to quote the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. That article says, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles," and I will show that Prechter is a public figure who meets several of the "items" in the guidelines.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Prechter was the primary subject of "Business books take a bearish turn," a USA Today article on Aug 23, 2002, p. B3. Since 1987, Prechter has been mentioned by name 71 times in USA Today.

Prechter was the primary subject of "2 Theorists Split On Elliott Wave," a New York Times article on Feb. 6, 1989, p. D6. Since 1981, Prechter has been mentioned by name 25 times in the New York Times.

Prechter was the primary subject of "3600 on the Dow?," a Barron's front page article on Jan. 5, 1987. Since 1996, Prechter has been mentioned by name 34 times in Barron's/The Wall Street Journal.

Prechter was the primary subject of "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," a Futures magazine cover article, Nov. 2004.

Prechter was the primary subject of "Why Bears Growl," a Kiplinger Personal Finance article, October 2005, p. 46.

Prechter was the primary subject of "Bob Prechter Interview," The Technical Analyst cover article, July/August 2006 issue.

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

Contrary to the false claim that Prechter's books are all self-published, Elliott Wave Principle, At the Crest of the Tidal Wave, and Conquer the Crash were published by John Wiley & Sons, a large and reputable publishing house. Click on the links, the reviews are quoted on the Wiley pages.
Challenging the bestseller status of Conquer the Crash is silly. I'll remove the link that requires a subscription, but I also provided the page number in the citation for the NYT Book Review, which is for the actual list of best sellers with Conquer the Crash listed. It wasn't just on the best sellers lists for one week, either -- it was on the Wall Street Journal's bestseller list for 2 1/2 months, 12 July 2002 through 27 Sept. 2002. (Look it up online if you're a WSJ subscriber, otherwise you can hoof it the nearest library if you're motivated enough to check my facts.)
Prechter was also published in a scholarly journal, "Unconscious herding behavior as the psychological basis of financial market trends and patterns." Journal of Behavioral Finance, 2 (3), 2001, pp. 120-125.

Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google…

A Google search for "Robert Prechter" brings more than 60,000 results -- and those EXCLUDE results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. What's more, some 28,000 of the Google search results are non-English language, so Prechter has wide international notability.
Finally, for the record, my edits to Prechter's bio have NOT included ANY links to Prechter's products or commercial web site. This claim is rubbish, as anyone who checks the list of my contributions will plainly see.
This AFD is unnecessary and a waste of time. Prechter clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Before this AFD, I had politely said I was willing to find and include additional third-party sources for the Prechter bio. Editor 72.75.93.131 replied with rude sarcasm to my offer. This didn't have to happen. Rgfolsom 19:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, we've read that Guideline (not an Official Policy), and please note:

"People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles"

I believe that the operative word is may, as in, "this is is not a guarantee, your results may vary, only one might not be enough" ... And please if your comment fills more than a screen of text, then put it on the Talk page and say, "See "such-and-such" section on the Talk page." —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You instigated an AFD on notability that has been steamrolled by the weight of the facts in every relevant Wikipedia criterion, including a few I didn’t even address -- such as the “widely recognized” and “professor” tests. You also made demonstrably phony claims about me using the article as a soapbox.
Yet in the face of this… you patronize me about Guidelines vs. Policy, the meaning of “may,” and where else to put all the evidence I offer? Oh my.
Oh, my. Rgfolsom 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- having no previous connection with the subject it is obvious that the amount of newspaper coverage is sufficient. I cannot account for the deletes, unless they are based on his profession or his views. People in his own field take him seriously, and that is enoughDGG 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

The guy's marketing hype works overboard and lures in suckers by the day. He was ONCE good, in the 1980's when the waves were "easier" to read. Not any more. But the hype keeps luring suckers in. Despite having admitted that he's called 1998 to 2006 completely wrong (recent Elliott Wave Threorist said this period "has not been tradable using my tools"), the marketing machine works overboard.

The Traders Big 5 Flash service has produced such atrocious results that EWI hid them once people realised they were listed on their website. And they neglect to mention that this service has turned over 4 analysts in a year. But the marketing hyperbole continues: Whichever category you belong to, you probably don't have time to scan the markets for high-probability trading opportunities all day long, day after day, all through the year. That's what Flash does for you. In my opinion, even George Orwell would find such bending of the truth stranger than fiction.

Personally, I think the WP article, with it's fair criticism section, does a public service. There are few places on the internet where the other view can be heard. If Prechter's analysis was any good, the results should speak for themselves. Don't take my word for it, ask EWI for some statistics to prove the results that are achieved. They will probably decline and point to a trading contest win ... from nearly 25 years ago. Therefore KEEP. Punanimal 18:15, 30th November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me ... what part of "neutral point of view" do you not understand? Any criticism, fair or unfair, has not place in a Wikipedia article ... Wikipedia is not a place "where the other view can be heard" ... that's the short definition of a "soapbox", BTW. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep simply because at first glance (I have worked in networks for trading rooms) it hits notability (though I think TA is herd instinct wrapped in expensive code) plus User:72.75.93.131 edits are feeling very odd and maybe they should consider reading WP:COOL. Ttiotsw 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Edit warring is not a valid reason for deletion. We have other ways to deal with that, like blocking an protection. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking that you promptly remove the Robert Prechter biography as an article for deletion. The editor who requested the AFD spurned my prior good-faith attempt to resolve the primary sources issue. This editor also made false claims about "links to the subject's publications," plus other reckless accusations; and, given what we can all read here, there is strong reason to believe that this AFD process should not have happened at all.

Even so, I have since added reputable third-party citations to the Prechter bio. In this AFD discussion I've shown that Prechter surpasses the standards explained in Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the evidence I've presented on this page has not been challenged; it's also self-evident that the opinions expressed to "keep" the article already go beyond the rough consensus standard. Thank you. Rgfolsom 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Holiday[edit]

Probable hoax, or Something Made Up in School One Day. The references at the bottom don't support the holiday idea: they all refer to the hoax email. Note the sentence "Since this holiday is little known and since the original hoax which it is based on was started on the Internet, wikipedia and other Internet resources are being used to spread word of this holiday." Joyous! | Talk 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero sources and WP:NFT as noted in nom. Demiurge 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (in fact, speedy delete as nonsense) Far too many references to "little known" and other weasel words, it's something made up in school. Lots of "references", but none for this fictitious holiday. Agent 86 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Folantin 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Agent 86. Danny Lilithborne 11:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing delete - "Since this holiday is little known and since the original hoax which it is based on was started on the Internet, wikipedia and other Internet resources are being used to spread word of this holiday." Lucky us. That's hilarious. We get told it's non-notable and advertising all in one sentence. I wish all articles at AFD were like that! Moreschi 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this thing has a whole lot of reliable sources describing the original hoax this was based off. Maybe those sources can be used in Mars if it wasn't mentioned already (especially the snopes.com article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easy delete per Moreschi. riana_dzasta 17:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José María Albareda[edit]

José María Albareda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

stub on non-notable individual Alecmconroy 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A friend of the founder of Opus Dei and a prominent member of several notable institutions. See this spanish article on him. Of course, the article needs expanding and we need to find more verifiable sources. yandman 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Why do we continue to have Afd requests when the subject would clearly be notable if someone id the work. whoever put him in can be asked to do some more, it does not require us to do it personally.

"I never heard of him and thsi doesnt say much. he must be non-notable."DGG 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Secretary General and head of the Higher Council of Scientific Research (CSIC), the main Spanish scientific institution." clearly makes him notable unless someone can prove to me the Higher Council of Scientific Research is not Spain's main scientific institution as claimed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slab Day[edit]

Slab Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced. No Importance. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Prod removed. Speedy denied. --Onorem 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I was the speedier. --Wafulz 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear NFT (which is how I had PRODed it a few days ago) and/or a recent local not-yet-notable thing. DMacks 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Saenz[edit]

I honestly don't know if this guy is a notable producer, but the article looks like junk imported from MySpace, and the author has ignored a suggestion to clean up the article, and is removing cleanup tags. Based on the user name, I think there is a conflict of interest issue. If we should have an article on Saenz, this certainly is not it. Upp◦land 07:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure where you got that idea that this is junk imported from myspace... If you did a little research or had any sort of background in the music industry you would clearly know that this page is not merely "Junk". The page is completely factual and contains no personal views of any kind. Not really sure what you need to see in order for this to be a relevant article, in which you would not bad mouth because of lack of knowledge in his industry. A little more information would be helpful for people wanting to improve the quality of articles on Wiki. JMGUSA 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read what I wrote at your talkpage several days ago ("If you think the page deserves a chance to stay, you really need to make an effort to make it look and read like a Wikipedia article, and, most importantly, to provide independent [third-party] sources [such as reviews] that demonstrate the significance of the subject.") and acted on it, I might not have made this nomination, but you have elected to ignore it completely. The fact is that the article looks like promotional junk and the only links it has are an "official" website and a MySpace webpage (also "official"). Upp◦land 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is NOT myspace. MER-C 08:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was properly listed but removed from the daily AFD page by the article author. Upp◦land 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remove the irrelevant text about the studio, remove the pics of the studios, remove the logo and remove the Quincey Jones quote. What's left? Nothing to justify an article in Wikipedia. Emeraude 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's remixed a bunch of stuff, but I don't see that that makes him notable unless they've become hits. No allmusic entry. bikeable (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WMMartin 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklear[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:BAND criteria? No hit singles or clear following apparent. Non-notable--Edchilvers 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND, only released one EP (the article on which has been prodded by me) and no other assertion of notability made. MER-C 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Cloasing Admin - If delete is the final verdict. It might not be a bad idea to do a redirect to Nuclear. It's not a common typ-o, but I bet there are some folks who just don't know the proper spelling. (Note, the proposed redirect points to a disamb page). →Bobby← 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right a lot of people don't know their spelling. Some even misspell the word "closing". ;) _ Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. WMMartin 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Masterful prod reasoning there, MER-C.--Kchase T 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – Gurch 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCENet[edit]

TCENet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable web portal designed by some students at a university. Mikeblas 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Even worse, it's not even on the Interweb, as the first three words tell you: "An Intranet portal...". So tagged. MER-C 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that's a typo. The site is here, plainly visible to us all. -- Mikeblas 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN, also WP:V. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. yandman 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally. Intranet portal, sheesh. Herostratus 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mind matrix 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Radio[edit]

The Bug Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination for 86.134.43.121 who explains on the talk page that he believes this to be advertising. No comment. Kimchi.sg 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion. Textbook case of "blatant advertising for a product that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". We're not Amazon. yandman 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwin Revestir[edit]

Sherwin Revestir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: Non-notable anime voice-over actress. Fails WP:BIO. Only 28 unique Google hits which is very low for an actor/actress. Author de-prodded with no explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. yandman 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep her info, it will serve as a reference to her fans here in the Philippines. Thanks! rollchan 01:10, 05 December 2006 (GMT) — 210.1.91.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This seems to be a borderline case, so when in doubt... Has since been moved to Foxhole (band), so I'm adapting the AfD headers. Sandstein 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhole (band)[edit]

Foxhole (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although the article is relatively long, there's nothing there to justify inclusion. Their album "releases" are small (500 or 1000 copies...), I can find no mention of their concerts from a reliable source, the links provided are either self-publications on myspace/youtube or reviews from non-notable people, google gives no independent coverage of the band, and the article was a spa's first edit. yandman 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the issue here is not the band's legitimacy, but that the links and sources aren't ones that some would consider "notable". I have added a link to a brief review of the band's Cornerstone Festival performance. Cornerstone is an annual festival which had an attendance of over 10,000 last year. Foxhole was featured on Mono Vs. Stereo Records' national release "The Revolution Will Begin In The Blink Of An Eye". http://www.monovsstereo.com/releases.asp Also noteworthy is that that several of the Foxhole's "sister" bands have Wikipedia pages, including Anathallo and Saxon Shore. These bands have shared members, stages, and labels. They also cater to a similar audience. This seems to set a precedent. In February 2005, We the Wintering Tree made CMJ's Top 20, and subsequently the album has been in regular rotation on college radio. A quick google search of the album title will demonstrate this. Post-rock, as a genre, is characteristically "non-notable". Aside from Slint, very few bands listed in the Post-rock groups category are, by most standards of music, of little national, international, and certainly historical repute. Pressings are typically small, but they nevertheless make an impact. The same can be said of Foxhole. This is evidenced, I think, by the range and scope of praise in the reviews listed, which stretch to international lengths. Futureproofaudiolab 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Futureproofaudiolab[reply]

SEE WP:BAND. yandman 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, the band has been covered consistently in a publication (Buzzgrinder Electronic Magazine) that is dedicated to the indie rock subculture. The band's record label, Burnt Toast Vinyl, features releases from many other notable artists, including Sufjan Stevens, whose recent release Illinois has sold over 200,000 copies.Futureproofaudiolab 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Futureproofaudiolab[reply]
PROS: On label (Burnt Toast Vinyl, of Philadelphia) with major players. Performed at many major festivals. Opened for many major acts (Unwed Sailor, Denison Witmer, Danielson Famile, Saxon Shore). Charted on CMJ Top 100 for a period in 2005. Listed on many "best of" lists, esp. those concerned with instrumental or avant-grade music. Song featured on Etnies (major skate shoe company) 2006 Tour DVD, of which there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of copies. One member of band, Gregory Belt Leppert, is very lauded graphic designer, having designed many award-winning and huge-selling album covers (Relient K's "Mmhmm," for example) as well as numerous other artworks in various markets.
CONS: Albums not platinum--but who was "Britney Spears" before some label auditioned her and marketed her and sold millions of copies? She had less to her name than Foxhole. No mention of concerts from reliable source--but Foxhole is a recording-focused band, though they've played over 100 concerts. Silver Jews played NO concerts for many many years. Should they be deleted?Kaffehaus 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Kaffehaus[reply]

PER THE GUIDELINES FOR ARTICLE VALIDATION REGARDING BANDS
Foxhole meets the following criteria:

2.) Foxhole HAS CHARTED on Top 100 of CMJ's new adds, quite a few times in 2005, actually. Email the guys at Nice Promo for more details on that.

5.) Foxhole is on a noteworthy indie label, with a roster of significant artists (have included Denison Witmer, Saxon Shore, Unwed Sailor, and others).

7.) Foxhole is has helped forge the sound of the Louisville/Nashville post-rock scene over the past five years; hear Of Asaph, Commonwealth, Telavet, The Ascent of Everest, and others for proof.

10.) Foxhole has appeared on a "soundtrack," of sorts, for the widely-distributed DVD from Etnies shoe company in 2006.

Kaffehaus 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Kaffehaus[reply]
Foxhole was featured in the print magazine "Law of Inertia" (Amazon subscription link [32]) as one of Paul Hinojos' Top 10 records of 2004. Paul Hinojos is formerly a guitarist for Sparta Sparta_(band) (ex members of At the Drive-In) and most recently a guitarist for The Mars Volta Mars_Volta. See album number 6 on the ~~included~~ linked image showing a clipping from the magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futureproofaudiolab (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) ~~Delete~~ - RE ~~the above user's~~ Kaffehaus's justifications:

2. I'm not sure what CMJ is, but unless it is a "national music chart" (along the lines of Billboard) it doesn't satisfy this crit.

~~5. The crit specifies that the band must have "released two or more albums on a major label". As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened.~~

7. Unverified claim. Cite some sources and we can decide for ourselves.

10. Could find no record of the dvd or soundtrack.

If you can provide sources showing how the band meets the criteria, it will be a different story. Unless that happens, the article needs to be removed until Foxhole meets notability criteria. →Bobby← 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - RE Futureproofaudiolab's reasoning:

1. This crit requires "multiple non trivial published works".

2. As with the CMJ case, I'm not sure if Paul Hinojo's Top 10 qualifies as a "national music chart".

3. I'm not quite sure how Hinojo's notability would affect the band in question.

Allow me to quickly say that I really admire the dedication of the two folks trying to save the article. However, it might be better to concentrate on other issues right now, and work on the Foxhole article when the band achieves notability. →Bobby← 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per above: For starters, Foxhole has released one album on BTV, a second ("We the Wintering Tree") is soon to be reissued on the same label, and a third is in production as we speak. Email btv@burnttoastvinyl.com for verification.Kaffehaus 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)kaffehaus[reply]
Also: CMJ is College Music Journal, a significant chart that is held in high regard by the entire music industry. See http://www.cmj.com for more on that... No online record of the charting exists but I am in contact with CMJ to get that "proof" for you sticklers.Kaffehaus 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)kaffehaus[reply]

Reply - Based on the wording in the article, it appears as if Foxhole joined the label after their last album was released. This should be clarified. As to CMJ, as I understand it, the journal pubulishes charts sent in from local radio stations that pay membership fees. I'm still not sure these charts qualify under the critrion. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to be a jerk; I actually tend to lean towards inclusion. However, I also want to make sure that WP does not turn into a directory of every garage band on earth. It looks like Foxhole is quite a bit more than a garage band, but I'd still like to see the sources in the article. In the end, a well cited article is a better article which is something we all can appreciate. If you can get some sources, I'd be more than willing to help with wikifying the article. →Bobby← 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE DISCUSSION ENDER? Here is "source material" to vouch for the "two albums on a significant record label" rule: https://www.burnttoastvinyl.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/btv/store/commerce.cgi .
Kaffehaus 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Kaffehaus[reply]

Changing Position to Keep. Works for me. Some might take issue with calling BTV a major label, but given the fact that they have records for Denison Witmer, Saxon Shore and Unwed Sailor I'm satisfied that crit 5 is satisfied. Now we just need to clean up the article! →Bobby← 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of all possible keeps - Burnt Vinyl is hardly a major label (some would even say that it has yet to make "significant"); while CMJ is a significant trade magazine catering to the college radio crowd (I know - I was in the business for eleven years), I must point out that the "importance" of a CMJ chart is questionable at best considering that recordings can make it without official release. One particularly emphatic college program director can skew the results). The definitive standard in the United States is Billboard, with Cashbox almost alongside it until Cashbox went under about a decade ago. That said, if the individuals put the same amount of effort into the article as they did here, we wouldn't have this conversation in the first place. Don't put your sources and notability here - put it in the article and leave no doubt that an encyclopedic article about Foxhole belongs here - right now, the article doesn't show that. B.Wind 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If every bit of aforemention information (some of which, admittably, is not notable) were cited in the article as grounds for inclusion, then I'm afraid that Wikipedia wouldn't be the better for it. Indeed, it would appear as if the article were trying to over-argue for its importance, esp. when most of the post-rock already listed on Wikipedia include very little pertinent information, be it regarding charts, interviews, write-ups, soundtracks, etc. Hence, in the interest of keeping Wikipedia from hosting more questionable information, I'm ready and willing to have the article taken down. It may be only a few months before the criteria is met, but until then, as previously mentioned, there are more important things to worry about. All the same, if other post-rock groups' present listings on Wikipedia are any indication as to what makes for a suitable article, then it's very difficult to see what distinguishes such articles from the current foxhole listing. Crepelife 3.17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the the bulk of the articles on relatively new musical acts do not meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's why it seems to have about eight AfD's for music articles each day. Please don't mistake the true purpose of the AfD: to weed out the articles that don't belong here and to enhance those that should be here but do not quite make standard. The good fight is being fought here, but the suggestions need to be incorporated into the article for it to stand on its own. Sometimes just presenting the complete picture instead of overselling will be enough to get the acceptance of the article started. But please don't take it personally, either: sooner or later, virtually every editor has his/her creation go through the process (I had three deleted in one day, unfortunately). That's part of the territory... but don't give up. B.Wind 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, move it to Foxhole (band) and redirect Foxhole to Defensive fighting position. If not, simply redirect. Sean Curtin 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On balance I don't find adequate notability or enough independent referencing yet. WMMartin 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-parent crush[edit]

This article is unsourced Original research bordering on nonsense. Created by a user who is now on indef block for vandalism. Delete.--Isotope23 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unheard-of concept outside of this article. Azate 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Linuxaurus 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent original research. No Google hits or Google Books hits to back this up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very insightful commentary. - Femmina 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be insightful, but it is still unsourced Original research.--Isotope23 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One for the crusher. --Folantin 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Without citation, we have to assume it's something made up in school one day -Markeer 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the shocking state of this article has completely traumatized me. I need my mummy!!! Moreschi 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete Made up term, original non-research. Basically garbage. Chris Buckey 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wft is this about? Woodgreener--86.135.73.113 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full German breakfast[edit]

Full German breakfast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This either a hoax, a misunderstanding, or an extreme rarity. In the latter case it's unsourced. The talk page agrees. There simply isn't such a thing. Everything you ever wanted to know about what Germans eat in the morning is already in the Breakfast article Delete. Azate 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure its a hoax exactly since there are a few google hits [33]. The seven foot sausage thing seems either made-up, or anecdotal. The German wikipedia's article on breakfast [34] does not appear to mention any such thing and their description of a typical breakfast belies this article. Unnotable concept, unverifiable, etc. Dina 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, nothing to do with real German breakfast which does not usually emphasize sausages. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax Agathoclea 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Like Sashimi[edit]

Raw Like Sashimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a blog, which features "full album downloads" (hello, piracy anyone)... 600k alexa rank (which shouldn't be counted anyway), most raw sashimi google links talk about the food and not the blog, and the only references to "raw sashimi +riaa" point to this wikipedia article. Hmm, for all practical purposes this fails WP:WEB. timecop 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. This is either a vanity page or one by proxy. Useless blog garbage.--lesalle 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB and no sources or references whatsoever to show notability (therefore fails WP:V) so delete. Jayden54 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. - Femmina 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Argh! Japanese pirates? Where, where?! As per nom... Spawn Man 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Hopping[edit]

Garden Hopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At best, a non notable children's game. Possibly also comes under "wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". Ladybirdintheuk 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, plus: Vanity page of "The four highest ranking masters in the world ... Burge, Ben, Lish and Greg". Azate 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article also has the triple whammy of being an unsourced orphan dead-end. B.Wind 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, looks like more fake fun & games from our English secondary school friends. Tubezone 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G3, vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism includes "Silly vandalism: Creating joke or hoax articles ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, creator's only contribution was creating this article. AgentPeppermint 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete!! The four "masters" go to my school and are infact very well known for there work and have gained much recognition from the public. They have however, for the moment, retired from the sport, as they felt they have reached their current peak. Nevertheless, they take this daring sport very seriously and I feel that the people who insist on deleting the article speak to the boys themselves as they feel very strongly about there hard work and efforts. Maybe a few of you should also lighten up! The article is not a hoax article, it is very much real! 84.67.76.139 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 84.67.76.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep I don't see why my comments should be any less listened too than any others! I actually know these people and I know what it's all about. Everyone else, however does not. I can get a handful of people to express there opinions on this, who know the boys also and I intend to do so asap! 84.67.76.139 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 84.67.76.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete dumb. Close before above user makes good on her threat of sock/meatpuppetery.Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Burge' from the article and I can assure you everything that has been written there is 100% real. The 4 masters were prosecuted for garden hopping and two of those were later sent to court and given a total of £250 fine and sentenced to a 6 month referal order. This is a big thing in our area and lots of people will see this as important. Please do not delete it as because you are not from our area you do not understand what it means to the people. Thanks, Burge' =D 88.106.70.211 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)— 88.106.70.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment This falls under the category of "so what". You just verified its non-notability. Danny Lilithborne 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omg are you sat waiting for people to write comments?84.67.76.139 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Just because it isn't important to everyone doesn't mean it is not important to some. There are some articles on here specific to the USA that aren't important to people living in the UK but these articles are still not deleted? There is a notable amount of people affected by the issues in this article that find it important. Also the subject is becoming quite a legend around our area so Wikipedia and this article would be a valuable resource for anyone wanting to find out more about the subject. This is a similar thing to Robin Hood, he is a legend that perhaps only people living in the Nottinghamshire area would be interested in but I'm sure other people outside of the Sherwood area would be interested. The same should apply for this article. Burge 88.106.70.211 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and chuckle at the idea of some bored teenagers trespassing in suburban gardens being equated with Robin Hood. Maybe try again when Kevin Costner stars in a movie about garden hopping :-) ChrisTheDude 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public podcasting[edit]

Public podcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Public podcasting. Public defecation. Public display of affection. What do these 3 things have in common? You got it. They don't belong on wikipedia because wikipedia is not a dictionary. What useful content (none really) that can be merged into podcasting, and this deleted with extreme prejudice. Notice, every 'external link' in the article is just pure blogspam. timecop 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a bunch of nonsense. Ter e nc e Ong 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:Not a dictionary, as the article offers nothing more than a basic dictionary definition (therefore also fails WP:V). Jayden54 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. linkspam. nonsense. - Femmina 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrillblog[edit]

Shrillblog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alexa ranking in 2million, 150ish google hits (mostly irrelevant blogroll-type cruft, this clearly fails WP:WEB. I'd speedy this, but it would probably generate hate. If not, feel free to speedy. timecop 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB and doesn't appear to be notable at all. No sources either to show any notability, so delete. Jayden54 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. a page about a blog. - Femmina 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - ^ What he said, I'm tired of all the blogtards getting their own pages in a wiki. Go make your own and stop wasting our time. --Amanduhh 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:V. Lacks any sources beyond the primary source and lacks any non-trivial non-blog sources. --Quirex 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So, it's hard not to notice: This 'War On Blogs' thing, as seen on timecop's user page, is a Gay Nigger Association of America group that nominates blogs for deletion, and then converges to ensure a 'delete' vote? Have fun abusing the system, I guess. Auto movil 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - yes, your comment was TOTALLY relevant to the debate on this page. Please provide a valid reason why THIS particular article should be kept in encyclopedia, lacking reliable sources, verifiability, and failing to be a notable website. Comeon, 2million alexa? My *personal* homepage has higher alexa rating than this blog! Stay on topic, please. --timecop 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're an avowed member of a trolling group -- i.e., a troll -- who nominates blogs for deletion under a set of pretenses that you invented yourself. This is relevant to your nominations, and to this discussion. I see included in your list of noms a high-traffic portal (i.e. Buzzflash) and a left-blog that won several awards (i.e. Sadly No). Therefore, anything you say must be taken in context. You'll present a bad-faith case for deletion, such that no neutral user can rely on your statements. But if it works and turns you on, you're welcome to play with Wiki rules as much as you like. Auto movil 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Maybe you have a thing for personal attacks on AFD pages, seems like something you've done it in the past. There was nothing notable about Sadly, No and I have no idea when Buzzflash was deleted, but it wasn't my nomination. So your other conspiracy theory against me as some evil blog-deleter is thrown out too. --timecop 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. →Bobby← 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry German Kid[edit]

Angry German Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redirect to nowhere Ocatecir 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per R1. I tagged it as such. →Bobby← 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete R1 Ter e nc e Ong 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albophobia[edit]

del hopeless neologism introduced in France (fr:Albophobie) but has absolutely no prominence in English language. The article cannot be salvaged by renaming into something else because in its shortness of a dicdef it conflates two notions: reverse racism, 9a rather controversia l topic, which deserves bettter coverage than a section in "racism") and usual inter-ethnic animosity, which presents anywhere where two different ethnoses contact, but which is not normally called "racism". `'mikkanarxi 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:Not a dictionary. This article doesn't offer anything more than a definition of a neologism, and doesn't offer any addition information or references. Jayden54 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEO. A search for a definition of "albophobia" on Dictionary.com turns up nothing; "albophobia dictionary" on Google turn up multiple pages with "Grandiloquent Dictionary" listings on various blogs... definitely not reliable sources. "Albophobia" doesn't yield anything on thefreedictionary.com,MSN Encarta, yourdictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster Online. B.Wind 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the nominator for the previous AFD. It came out in the discussion that this was the beginnings of a translation of the French Wikipedia article, and I withdrew the nomination, with the idea that we should wait and see what the whole article looks like. I am also somewhat dubious as to whether the final result will be useful to the English Wikipedia, but the translation is clearly not finished; in fact, it now appears that the translator was confused by my efforts to prod and then AFD the article, and has stopped. I think at the very least the article should be clearly marked as a translation in progress; it may also be time now to simply delete the stub and wait until some new translator gets interested. Brianyoumans 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Not a dictionary. WMMartin 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding credit[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of instruction manuals ElKevbo 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. B.Wind 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR. WMMartin 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination.Glendoremus 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete but don't let that put you off editing. Yomangani ^talk 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restless_Boards[edit]

Non-notable company, article written by a member of the company, tone is clear advertising. Non-notability means it can't be rewritten for acceptability. Phidauex 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP as I can't find any news articles or reviews on this company. No sources either to show any notability, so it also fails WP:V. Jayden54 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Creator - I tried to inform myself as best as possible before creating this page. I was not aware that the company needs to be "notable". There are a few minor articles published about us but having now read the rules, I realized that they may not be sufficient to show any notability. I want to mention also that I tried to stay neutral. This was not meant to be a sales point of any kind, it was more of an experiment for my first page on Wikipedia. I am a big user of Wikipedia and wanted to try a few things before starting to edit other pages. I'm sorry for any inconvinience and/or loss of time that this page might have brought on the mediators of Wikipedia. Thank you for your continued contribution to this great site. Christian Chenard-Lemire 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Don't get the idea that your article was terrible, because it wasn't. You should see some of the articles that people put up about their companies that don't even make a cursory effort to be neutral! Don't take this as a negative comment on your writing abilities, or your future career here on Wikipedia. As a general rule for notability, is that if the person/org has to add themselves, then they aren't notable. If they are really notable, someone else will add them of their own volition. Welcome to Wikipedia! Most of us make some mistakes the first few times, and we don't don't hold it against you. Phidauex 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, and Wikipedia is not a trade journal or yellow pages. WMMartin 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the author of the original article: This is a personal view, but what I look for in a company article is evidence that the company is doing, or has done, something more than just carry out its business. Simply being in business is what all companies do, so isn't notable. But if you're the first company to do something important, or the best company at doing something, and can prove it, you belong here. You're in the longboard business, so what I would look for would be something like "every world champion longboarder for the past ten years has used our board", so long as this is for product-related reasons, not just by chance ( sponsorship doesn't count, of course ). Phidauex makes a good point when he says that if you're really notable, someone else will add you. Keep watching Wikipedia, and the day someone you've never heard of re-creates this article will be the day your company can say "we're a successful business". Good luck for the future. WMMartin 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrimeBlog[edit]

CrimeBlog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a clear-cut case of WP:DICDEF. Incidentally, this is a combination of two of the worst words ever. And that 'duh' feeling about the definition. Delete, and if enough agree, Speedy delete by CSD:batshitinsane timecop 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TransWiki - to Wiktionary which doesn't have an article. It may seem obvious to many folks, but my granpappy doesn't know what a blog is, so the phrase might confuse him. Then again, my granpappy thinks computers are magic and need to be banished to hell, so I'm not sure it'll help much. I love that guy. Also, I'll remind the above user that when citing false CSD criteria, it is desirable to make the link point somewhere as specified in WP:HowToVentFrustrationDuringAFDReview. →Bobby← 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I changed the redlink. I still think deleting this is the appropriate action, seeing as after reading blog even in simple wikipedia, one could easily figure out that a crime blog is either a blog about crime or a criminal's blog. --timecop 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - or Delete. Crappy, non-notable neologism. - Femmina 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blog#Types_of_blogs or delete. Trivial dicdef. Sandstein 05:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, worthless blog neologism, etc. --Amanduhh 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotion. Mikemill 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TransWiki- this is more of a definition.~~

Delete, borderline speedy (A3). --humblefool® 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just delete it. Doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Mattucd 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot books[edit]

Cabot books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability, no verification. All I can get from this is that there is a publishing company out there devoted to making music theory books. Diez2 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publishers are usually notable. --- RockMFR 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some are, but not all of them. This one appears so small that the first few relevant hits are only eBay hits[35]. I've yet to find reliable sources to back up the article. Searches on Bookfinder4u.com only turn up the one book I found on Amazon and a lot of Meg Cabot. I suspect advertising from a VERY small press. They appear to sell only on eBay and badmouthing big publishers for not publishing their books with comments like: "Cabot Books being a specialist publisher, concentrates on a specific niche in the market, whereas huge outfits like Hal Leonard, Mel Bay or Music Sales Ltd like to concentrate on titles that will sell in multiples of 10,000+." (as seen in the above eBay link) is commonly a sign of a grudge of a small press. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the bit about selling only on eBay, but the stores mentioned here indicate a predominantly internet marketing. Thebookplace.com indicates they don't have their books in stock and that ordering would take 1-3 weeks. This points to the place being a self-publishers. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Templeton[edit]

David Templeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO. This is about a reporter who has not actually been the subject of any press nor has he received any awards. Diez2 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no context. B.Wind 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. DrKiernan 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urth[edit]

Urth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is actually 2 articles. One of them is a definition of "Urth," and the other fails WP:BAND. Diez2 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually three articles - it's a meta-article consisting of stubs with the same name which are not (yet) worthy of seperate pages accessable from a disambiguation page. However, given that these stubs have been sitting for quite some time unimproved, I vote as follows:
For "Urth" as a Norse mythological term - Merge and redirect to Norse mythology

For the band - Delete per nom.

For the usage by Gene Wolfe - Merge into The Book of the New Sun

—Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Swpb - per above. There's not a lot of content in this article, so it shouldn't be hard to merge and delete. Jayden54 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, merge and delete are mutually incompatible, because of the requirements of the GFDL. Uncle G 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion or administrator intervention is required to solve this problem. The content about the band can be edited out if found to be unverifiable. The rest is either a {{myth-stub}} article about the concept from mythology, with a disambiguation headnote pointing to The Book of the New Sun, or a plain disambiguation article. Even an anonymous editor has the necessary tools to be able to fix this article. This is not a problem for AFD. Keep. Uncle G 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged and redirected the article to Well of Urd, an existing article on the same topic, deleted the band content, and merged the remaining content into The Book of the New Sun. I am closing this AfD per Uncle G.

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO was presented and inserted into the article. --Core desat 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Green[edit]

Greg Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy CSD A7 contested. Article does not assert WP:Notability. Authorship of two non-notable books is not inherently notable. Subject does not meet WP:BIO: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Chondrite 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea whether the claims made on the talk page (specifically that Green is the sole author of authoritative works on cannabis cultivation) are factual or whether, if they are, the spirit of WP:BIO would be met. Since there were claims of notability on that page, I did recommend that the issue come to AfD rather than speedy deletion. --Dystopos 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be proved, though afd is right for this article. While it wasnt an autobiography it appears to me that the person who was the subject of the article made a request for the article to be created, thus delete on vanity grounds as well, SqueakBox 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very likely carefully crafted spam. --humblefool® 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: The original assertion that Mr. Green is the only author to ever publish a book in this field is correct and true. As such, this book is very notable in circles and industries relating to the cannabis breeding. Most people in the US do not understand, and therefor fear, said subject matter, but in many countries around the world Mr. Green's work is a standout and well-respected. I, myself, am a journalist for High Times magazine, based in Manhattan, and can atest that this author's works are used consistently for research directly related to articles we publish that are read by over 1 million people worldwide.This comment unsigned by first ever edit anon user User:69.116.201.26
Comment "The original assertion that Mr. Green is the only author to ever publish a book in this field is correct and true." A search for "cannabis cultivation" on amazon.com quickly shows that this claim is not correct. If the author or the books are notable, then it should be easy to demonstrate using references to reliable sources. Chondrite 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: Yes the original assertion was true. He is the only author to publish two books in those fields. If you have any experience with cannabis litrature then you would know that between 2003 and 2006 his books may have been the best selling cannabis books on Amazon, to my knowledge anyway, or should have been because they are well regarded, but Amazon is a poor choice of rating. Right now Jorge Cervantes has a new book which would be a better seller. The only other modern breeding publication would be from DJ Short, but he has not done a cultivation manual. I am not surprised that High Times references Greg Green. The author is notable and should stay. (F0xfree 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Can the admin who closes this afd please be aware of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Simonapro. It is possible that the same user (who wrote DO NOT DELETE in two comments) is the same person, ie F0xfree and 69.116.201.26, SqueakBox 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not 69.116.201.26 which is New York and coming from the person who told you that they worked for High Times magazine in NY. Assuming bad faith is not going to help the article which is what you should be doing. (F0xfree 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: Add my 2 cents. (88.101.172.224 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs the former Washington editor for High Times, I would like to point out that several authors wrote more than one book on marijuana cultivation, especially Ed Rosenthal, who was affiliated with High Times. I think there is room for an entry here on Wikipedia for Green, but the baloney hype needs to be screened out, otherwise it is just badly crafted self-promotion.--Cberlet 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two things are very strange. 69.116.201.26 is New York with claims to be affiliated with HT. So if Simonapro is banned and is 69.116.201.26 then that is a NY entry. As you can see the IP that was attributed to Simonapro was not in NY. So I do not see how an Afc could have linked the two. That seems very wrong to me. Secondly, the claim is that Greg Green is the only author to have dedicated book on cannabis breeding/genetics and another dedicated book on cannabis cultivation. For the life of me I have looked through my book collection and online, and the statement seems to be absolutely true as far as I can tell unless you can bring up an author who has done the same. It seems exclusive to Green. Also do you remember Green's work being reviewed or cited by HT mag? (Backlit 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The internet is not geographically constrained, a person of even limited intellegence can appear to come from many places at once. Simomapro got caught as a sock-puppet due to a lack of understanding about how to not get caught as a sock-puppet(no gunna say what the mistake was though). The check-user can be relied on.

Pity you never met F0xfree, you two may have gotten along well as you have similiar points of view. Too bad F0xfree got banned from Wikipedia just an hour and 15 minutes before you arrived here, or you could have talked about the ideas you have in common. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is easy with the resources to appear to come from more than one place. I, for instance, while in Honduras, have the ability to make edits as if they come from the UK as I have (legal) access to a computer in London using simple software) so we cant discount that a user in the Czech republic could do the same with a US computer, SqueakBox 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that discussion of Simonapro's sockpuppetry would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Simonapro, and Comment that Backlit's second point constitutes original research, and for that reason would not be appropriate for inclusion in the article. The problem is that nothing seems to have been published in reliable sources about Green or his books. Since the Green Candy Press site does not include biographical information about Green, verifiable article content is limited to mentioning that Green has published two books, and so the article will never get beyond a stub. Chondrite 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of books on cannabis cultivation:

Grow Great Marijuana: An Uncomplicated Guide to Growing the World's Finest Cannabis by Logan Edwards

European Cannabis Cultivation: A Complete Growers Guide

Organic Marijuana, Soma Style: The Pleasures of Cultivating Connoisseur Cannabis (Marijuana Tips) by "Soma"

Marijuana Hydroponics by D. Storm

Marijuana Growers Insider's Guide by Frank Mel

Growing Marijuana Hydroponicaly by Jeff Mota and Tina Wright Hans

Marijuana Chemistry: Genetics, Processing & Potency by Michael Starks

Cultivating Exceptional Cannabis: An Expert Breeder Shares His Secrets (Marijuana Tips Series) by D.J. Short

Growing Extraordinary Marijuana by Adam Gottlieb and Larry Todd

etc., etc., etc., writing a couple of books does not make a person notable (unless the books are of course noteworthy in themselves). I agree with the nominator: does not meet WP:BIO. DrKiernan 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE[edit]

XPLANE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned that deletion in light of new sources, for which, see the DRV. (The summary provided by Uncle G is particularly helpful reading.) This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:CORP as there are several references and reviews of the company in non-trivial publications such as CNN Money. Jayden54 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a slight hint of a weblog related to this company as the 2nd hit, and this immediately raises red-spam flags for me. --timecop 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to XPLANE (company). Cited sources now show this meets WP:CORP. I'd suggest a dab page for the company, the flight simulator and the aircraft. --Pak21 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and create dab page per Pak21. The first version was clearly delete material, but the rewrite just as clearly meets WP:CORP by citing independent references. It is unfortunate that it took a nasty slog through deletion review to get here, but that just illustrates the hazards of ignoring Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would strongly advise the original author to adopt a hands-off approach to this article in the future and let other editors maintain it; this will eliminate any future COI concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why should Microsoft be treated differently then X-Plane? Naem 213.42.21.78 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because Microsoft software is on over 80% of desktop PCs world wide? *shrug* Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two claims to fame (which may not meet formal WP:CORP criteria). --Phil Wolff 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, xplane-the-company is a thought leader in data visualization, illustration. Their work keeps raising the bar in how communication problems are approached, how clients are involved in the process, and tools for being effective much faster than before. So they've demonstrated leadership in a craft, nearly redefining an industry.

Second, their Business 2.0 look is becoming one of the hallmark aesthetics of the dot com era, the way Art Deco was for the 1920s. I don't know if they see themselves this way, but I think they carved a chunk of art history for themselves. --Phil Wolff 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has 30 edits. Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have read Business 2.0, which is an informed publication. That they use XPLANE is a good level of independent support. Stephen B Streater 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has few recent contributions outside the area. Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That probably depends on what you mean by recent. I have been keeping in touch and am on the WikiEN mailing list. I also have over 4,000 edits to my name - more than the above poster. One shouldn't let paranoia colour ones judgement too much. Stephen B Streater 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nice stub for a company that clearly meets WP:CORP. Can an admin invoke WP:SNOW at this point? B.Wind 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot, as there is no unanimous decision. Proto::type 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to XPLANE (company) and create disambig page for 3 different Xplane articles. The article is stubby, and in need of expansion, but it is substantially improved over the previous article. It is well referenced to multiple, third-party sources now. --Jayron 32 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two sources is hardly "multiple". When the "references" and "see alsos" are bigger than the article itself, something is wrong. Doesn't look like this stub can get any further than it has on referenced material alone. As for a WP:SNOW keep closure, we can't have that, because a number of the "keep" comments bear no relevance. I mean, comparing this company to Microsoft? Still worried that not only is the second result on Google a blog, but that most of the rest aren't even referring to this company. Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is no longer spam and information is reliably sourced through more than one source, establishing notability and verifiability. (Disclosure: I was one who helped the author revise the article after it was initially deleted to meet guidelines and policies.) Seraphimblade 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies the regular WP:CORP guideline. --Oakshade 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:CORP, but will need an eye keeping on it, as many of the article contributors work for the company. Proto::type 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per numerous comments on conflict of interest, I don't plan to make any more edits to the XPLANE article (I am the founder and CEO of the company). To my knowledge, none of the text in the current article was written by me or anyone else who works for (or has any affiliation with) XPLANE. If I have anything to offer I will put in on the XPLANE talk page for others to consider.--Dgray xplane 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wisest policy. I didn't put an article up about me or my company in the end. People can always come to my company website for the official view. Wikipedia is more about what other people think. [Edit] This wasn't obvious from the anyone can edit claim, but it becomes evident pretty quickly if you try it out. Other sites, such as Wikinfo, are more relaxed, but have correspondingly fewer readers. Stephen B Streater 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wasn't impressed with the previous version of the article but I think this version is a good start and should be kept. --Charlesknight 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog meta[edit]

Blog meta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two problems with this one: WP:DICDEF and the fact that it's used by a total of 1 person in the whole world (the article author). No relevant google hits, no sources, no references, and a dicdef. delete. timecop 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom --Simonkoldyk 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or Speedy Delete. confusing. page is a single sentence. - Femmina 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Amanduhh 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- just a dictionary definition. If you could establish that it's actually used by people you could maybe argue for a transwiki, but it does not belong here. Reyk _YO! 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dushintsi[edit]

exactly 38 inhabitants according to the Bulgarian article Gwz 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per precedent: "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." I would point out that the article needs to be formalized and cleaned up, but there is absolutely no cause for deletion. →Bobby← 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What Bobby said. --Oakshade 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only as a one line stub. This seems to be a real place [36] but most of the article is OR travel guide-style rubbish. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and keep - all cities and villages are notable per precedent, but this article looks abandoned in mid-thought. B.Wind 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup (for what it's worth Googling "Душинци" generates about 90 hits, some of which appear to be related to the city, others are of some people with that surname, and my Bulgarian is a bit rusty, so there are a bunch that I cannot either connect to the city or a person so-named.) Any way, cities are kept. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Valley Mall[edit]

This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus narrowly overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent; far less notable malls have had articles written about them. WP:V is not criteria for deletion; it's criteria for improving the article. 23skidoo 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability - if less notable malls have articles, that may only mean that those articles need to be deleted. WP:V is one of the two most important policy reasons for deletion (the other being copyright violations) - if verifiability is not possible, the only article we cna have is blank, so deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An old regional mall with 1.2 million leasable square feet, which is the anchor for a residential community. I added 2 references. There are lots of additional routine articles in the state papers about routine events such as stores opening which I did not see the point of adding.Edison 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty old large mall- chance of non-trivial coverage approaches 1. --- RockMFR 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search on Lexis yields 125 newspaper articles, so there's definitely enough to keep some people busy if they want to write it. The existence of verifiable sources is a non-issue here. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and note that notability and Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability are not policies nor are they guidelines, they are essays. Silensor 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a substantial article that makes a strong case for establishing the notability of this mall. The additional sources help, and adding a few as references in the text of the article will only improve it further. Rereading the actual article in question makes the CSD seem even more unjustifiable. Alansohn 07:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the same article that was speedy deleted by JzG, and I hope that it wasn't, I am seriously questioning his judgement as an administrator. I'll assume good faith for now. :-( Silensor 07:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same article, don't worry. This is referenced, and asserts notability. The version JzG deleted accomplished neither of these things. Proto::type 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote looks different, but I still think it fails to establish substantive notability. However, just to address Silensor's point, I did post on the admin noticeboard that there were a large number of articles, and some valid subjects may have been swept up in the process. The problem was not, fundamentally, the directory entiries, it was Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his spamming campaign. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Reserves season 2006-07[edit]

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Reserves season 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is little more than a list of fixtures and results for a RESERVE team. Wikipedia is not a news or results service. I can see no merit in this article. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rklawton 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - cruft, other such articles covering first teams' individual seasons have been deleted so there is no good reason to keep this. Qwghlm 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, and the list isn't even complete - it doesn't list Devon St Lukes Bowl games for instance. Note to userQwghlm - for Plymouth, the first team's season pages for 2001-02 to 2006-07 (and 1886-87) also exist. Let's think about nominating them for blitzing as well if this goes. - fchd 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admire the creator(s) of these pages for all the work they've put in, but I agree with the previous comment. They have to go.Daemonic Kangaroo 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, I was going to put this up myself. Kingjamie 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Punkmorten 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom --Angelo 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. м info 20:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's Return[edit]

Nom - speedied once already; no changes made since last speedied; this is only a one line "article"; this could just as easily be merged in with the author's article. Rklawton 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've read the whole series of these books- it's a very well-known series. I don't even need to read the articles to remember that at least one or two of them received some very big awards. --- RockMFR 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable, but this "article" is a non-article of one sentence... but I don't know which would be better, delete to create a useful redlink or redirect to Hatchet (novel) until/unless someone is willing to write more than one vague sentence about the book. B.Wind 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now wikified and stubbed. --- RockMFR 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the stub per RockMFR. It looks much better, thanks! B.Wind 01:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sequel to a very notable book.Skynet1216 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is this particular book notable? Why not create a single article per series? Rklawton 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Published books, with notable authors are generally notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metrocenter Mall[edit]

This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. Less notable mall articles have been kept. WP:V is not in my opinion a criteria for deletion; it is a criteria for improving the article. 23skidoo 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:V is the primary criterion for deletion; if there's no verifiable information, there should be no article. (But no vote.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1.4 million square foot regional mall. Notable as first two level fuve anchor mall. Edison 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made a few edits over the past few months and questioned the last speedy delete made, putting this very process in motion. I am also the author of WP:MALL which seeks to clarify notability guidelines for the shopping mall category. Given sufficient time I can provide multiple nontrivial outside sources to further support notability for this article, as this was a unique mall to the area, and nationally, at the time of opening and more than likely garnered several newspaper articles during planning, construction and opening - but I will need to perform library research to verify.--Msr69er 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spoke by telephone with a reference librarian at the Phoenix Public Library who told me about a newspaper clippings file they have on this mall. There are several dozen clippings going back to 1973, mainly from the Arizona Republic, including a special pull-out supplement dated September 30, 1973. In the next 48-72 hours I will be looking at this file to see what sources are the best to use.--Msr69er 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give WP:MALL a chance, hopefully it won't be bastardised the same way the school proposals have. Silensor 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depletist[edit]

Depletist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a neologism whose speedy deletion was contested. It has been created, listed for deletion, and deleted once before; I do not know if the new version is any more robust. I believe this fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Eron 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no sources for it in wide spread usage, and a single use at the U.N. which isn't even sourced is just not good enough -- Whpq 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- This entry should not be deleted because the word is spreading really fast and even has links to many sites that can be searched on google. Further context for this page and word will be updated ASAP.

It is also associated with Ontario College of Art and Design, a recognized post-secondary university in Toronto, Ontario. Please allow time for the posting of further context.

The spread of this word is believed by many professors to be connected to the solution of a humanitarian issue. This is a small thing that can create incredible change in the attitudes of our world.

Also, the word has been translated in a few languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, and others.

Writer and professor Robert K. Logan is a contributor to this project.

His sources and input will be posted, with the translations into different languages.

Robert K. Logan (born August 31, 1939), originally trained as a physicist, is a media ecologist. He received a BS and PhD from MIT in 1961 and 1965. After two post-doctoral appointments at University of Illinois (1965-7) and University of Toronto (1967-8) he became a physics professor in 1968 at the U of Toronto until his retirement in 2005.

Aisha285 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote from the article: "The word was created in October, 2006, by a group of Think Tank students". In other words, it's a neologism thought up in school one day. (OK, University, but so what?) Emeraude 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be a Wikipedia article only after the "word" spreads. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism dict def, made up in (university) one day, only a couple of ghits [37] and it already has an entry on Wikitionary [38]. Even if this word does enter truly widespread use, we are an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not in dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Online, and should be deleted from Wiktionary as a freshly-coined neologism that is being spread by students less than two months after its creation. B.Wind 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update the Wikidictionary "depletist" entry is now no more. It was deleted as a protologism. B.Wind 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is more than just a definition of any word. It is a mind state that people should connect with. It is very much a current event that Wikipedia should be a part of. Spreading this knowledge is very important to shaping our world and only has positive outcomes. It's not just a definition, Many things have happened as a result of the creation of this word and this will all be posted. Aisha Sheikh 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above Keep vote was posted by user:Aisha285, who has voted to keep once already.
Comment I did not know that this was a poll. I apologize. I was only trying to make a comment.

comment - I think its admirable that a group is pushing this forward. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Whpq 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as admitted neologism. bikeable (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep If it is in general use it is in general use and notable. We do not judge the concept or he word. DGG 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you arguing that the word is in general use and notable, or that if it were, we should keep it? If the former - I don't see it. If the latter...well, yeah, of course. Or am I missing your point? --TheOther Bob 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still no sources to prove it is in widespread use. And spare us the "hug a tree" rhetoric please. Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is documentation (now linked) showing it's use beyond the class. It has been used on blogs across Canada and the United States [http:del.icio.us/tags/depletist]. Although the class had a a goal to alter peoples attitudes towards the environment, the word itself is simply filling a gap in the language. As various people and institutions are forming policies around their environmental practices, it is a useful word to describe actions, and to form policy around (it would be difficult to form laws around racism or sexism if those words did not exist).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbraden (talk • contribs) — Chrisbraden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Neologism, no reliable sources to establish widespread use. Fan-1967 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is not about being "hugging a tree" it is about getting people to care about the environment even if just a little, it is about sustainability, it is about stop messing with our planet because it's already in a deep mess that MAYBE we can do something about. It's a wake up call that being a depletist is NOT okay. Just as we have neologistic words such as "bling"--a slang, they've proven themselves to stick around. Even "racism" and "sexist" are nelogistic words as they were only created in the 20th century. Like Aisha285 and Chrisbraden have noted above, this word is a state of mind, it describes actions. It's an education for others. It's history in the making. For your proof that this word is spreading rapidly, you just have to google to see. What started as 0 hits has no become 498 hits in a matter of a few months. Please, it's absolutely essential that this word is kept. Please consider keeping it. Drea84 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Drea84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:NOT#SOAP. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, admitted to be as such in the article. Usage on activist blogs does not confer the societal acceptance required by WP:NEO. The "racist"/"sexist" argument also doesn't fly with me, because those words don't have opposites, and any word created to fill that gap in our language would be a neologism as well. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Shouldn't then by all the Neologism complaints, articles such as Truthiness, invented by Steven Colbert Earlier on this year be deleted as well? When exactly do you define a word has spread? Shall it be weeks? Months? Years? By subjective standpoints, there is no ‘after’ to any sort of spreading. The article does not push for any particular viewpoint, thus the arguments that it is a trying to turn wikipedia into a soapbox doesn't apply, it is simply a documentation of a word and it's emergement usage. The fact that it has been quoted on activist blogs is not sufficient evidence to determine it's neutrality. Darthophage 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Darthophage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - determination is by more objective stadnards of WP:RS, and WP:V. At this point, the article doesn't meet these. -- Whpq 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as you mention WP:RS and WP:V, I would note that truthiness has reliable sources and verifiability in spades (namely, more than 30 references from major news organizations). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that "truthiness" was already in the Oxford English Dictionary long before Colbert thought of the word.B.Wind 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. It may be good for this word to spread, but Wikipedia is not the place to spread anything. WP documents what has already spread, it does not do the spreading. --TheOther Bob 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Now, now, everybody. Lets look at the facts. This word is becoming the object of a healthy debate, and the Deletists do have a point, but to understand the positive ramifications of this word being recognized by a notable online encyclopedia that we all use will speak volumes when this word becomes common usage. All this KEEP and DELETE is interesting, but the raw facts are that this word seems to be being used by people, it seems it is spreading fast, it was created in part by a notable author and university professor. Really, so what if a bunch of university students contributed in the creation of a word? This word should carry the same weight as the word Racist. What is really being said by deleting this entry is that Borat holds more weight than a legitimate word that is a step in the right direction to creating a sustainable future. Delete if you must, but I would then question the motives of those who delete these entries. Pea73 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Pea73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Perhaps this word should carry the same weight as the word Racist. However, the word doesn't carry the same weight as racist, and Wikipedia deals in "is," not in "should be." Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia reports on what is in the world, not on what it would consider important to a world if it were making one. We're not making a world. We're making an encyclopedia about the world. To the extent that you question the motives of those who are building the encyclopedia, I'd encourage you to assume good faith.--TheOther Bob 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You will note that, on wikipedia, the word "Racist" actually redirects to the entry on "Racism", a much broader concept. As to Borat, as long as more people have heard of him than have heard of "depletist", he will - in terms of notability, which is a primary grounds for determining what does and does not belong on wikipedia - carry more weight. Don't blame the encyclopedia; blame Western culture. - Eron 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Borat - please see WP:POKEMON for the flaw with that argument. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all of the above. From doing a Google search there are some 495 returns, say 40 of those are unique? That seems to be enough spread of a word, especially since the geography of the hits suggests some international travel. Knowing what other "rumors" make it as content on some WP entries, I don't see why this word is causing such a concern?--Jchetner 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)— Jchetner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Danny Lilithborne 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP What's the deal, if the word is being used, as well as the idea behind it is sound enough to continue being used i don't see why it shouldn't be on here. @ least is not a Colbert word, or that elephant deal from about a year ago. there's obvious effort being put into it, as well as there's obvious spread and momentum. Wikipedia give it a rest and let them have it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.77.33 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — 74.108.77.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP Encyclopedia: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.This is an article on factual happenings and is thus valid for entry. It describes an idea as valid as any other. 70.51.144.100 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ENC. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to apologize for the existence of WP:ENC, some wikipedians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with their particular definition of "encylopedia" is mentally subnormal. Kappa 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expunge. Declared mission of User:Aisha285, who created the article to sprerad the use of the word, which never existed before. 40 unique Ghits, all of which are blog entries of some sort, involving AFAICT mainly OCAD students discussing the word. Fails WP:RS miserably. Ohconfucius 09:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, and given that this has apparently already been deleted once, perhaps we should seriously consider salting as well. --TheOther Bob 16:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering the commentary and seeming sockpuppetry on the page, I propose that if the page is deleted, it be salted as well. --Dennisthe2 05:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and protect per Ohconfucius and TheOther, and per here. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Salt. Spank author - when your mission is to spread a neologism, you are violating WP:POINT. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when you ask that a new editor be spanked, you are violating WP:BITE. Eron 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - non-notable neologism, blogs are not reliable sources. Also, please see WP:NFT. Block all the socks/meatpuppets as well. Moreschi 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism. —Hanuman Das 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A barely month old neologism? Come back when this word grows up. Resolute 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please Keep. Do the world some good. Things are bad and there is enough information to make this word valid. And btw- there is no sock puppetry going on.Pea73 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe you! Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear everyone, I signed into my account today to receive this message:

Sock puppetry
Aisha285, please be aware that sock puppetry - that is, creating and using multiple accounts in order to influence the result of a vote - violates Wikipedia policy. There is ample circumstantial evidence in the AfD vote located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depletist (second nomination) to suggest that you are creating multiple accounts to influence the result of that vote. If you have, in fact, done this, please revisit the AfD page to indicate which comments are your own posted under those multiple accounts. Thank you. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
All I have to say about this, is that, I AM NOW BEING FALSELY ACCUSED. Please read this carefully:
I only put this page up to help people, not to create problems. People are also using Wikipedian terms against me such as "SPANK THIS AUTHOR" or "SALT" or "EXPUNGE." I am a new author, and my intentions have only been good. If you read the article about "Depletist" you would realize that the intentions are good ones. Hopefully this would make you realize that a person who has good interests like this, would not take steps to violate any Wikipedia rules. Creating multiple accounts is an obvious violation. Also, I should point out that I cannot sit here all day, I do have to make a living to survive daily. Anyhow, I would rather be out creating a better awareness of this word and movement, because this page shows that many people are not educated in this matter, (while of course, thankfully, some people are).
Unfortunately, there have been many rude remarks made that I do believe to be quite unfair. I did not come to wikipedia to create hatred. I came here high spirited, and have been let down. Fortunately, I realize through this, that not everyone knows this word yet. Please help humanity in this positive movement forward. I am positive that one day "depletists and depletism" and the great events that have happened around it will be recognized by everyone and prevented. Even if this article is deleted, I still thank you Wikipedia. You have only given me more incentive to keep working hard in this endeavour. Cheers. Aisha Sheikh 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Salting is not necessarily a reflection on you, merely a shorthand for "delete and protect". It's an indication that contributors, possibly including you, but certainly including other members of the "think tank", would continue to create this article, which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. SPANK THIS AUTHOR is probably inappropriate if you're a new editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Next time tag transwikied articles with {{db-transwiki}}. --Core desat 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final (Pinyin)[edit]

Final (Pinyin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. James084 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. B.Wind 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion[edit]

Not notable. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction: I retract this AfD. The subject does have some historical significance even if it is not currently all that notable. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. A quick Google search turns up a book on the subject, as well as several mentions in scholarly publications. Geoffrey Spear 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful stub - the addition of an independent reference wouldn't hurt here. B.Wind 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A notable phenomenon in English religious history, and the book is a classic.DGG 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO just as notable as any other religious order ... we either delete all or we keep all Alf photoman 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rpg-tv[edit]

No indication this PA knockoff meets any of our notability guidelines. Contested PROD. --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 20 November 2006 (GMT)

Comment. This "PA knockoff" receives thousands of hits every week, is featured on joystiq on a weekly basis and is becoming a staple read for gaming enthusiasts across the web. Delete the entry if you really want, this page is doing no harm except to inform people about the comic. The comic recently surpassed 100 strips. --Trueplayer 16:02 21 November 2006

Thousands of hits is not enough: the Alexa ranking is a puny 3,548,702. While Alexa has many problems, this indicates there is not much traffic to the webcomic; I'd also like to note that Penny Arcade, for example, is ranked at 1,706. Even if it had a lot of traffic, nothing in WP:WEB mentions that. Even if one is very generous and reads a few blog mentions on Joystiq as an instance of fulfilling the first criterion, where's the second substantial mention in the reliable independent source? And the number of strips has absolutely nothing to do with notability. --Gwern (contribs) 02:04 22 November 2006 (GMT)

Delete, no verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Look, everybody and his cousin has a webcomic now. The entry cost to make a webcomic is very, very low - much lower than that required to get a strip into print. (And we don't even cover every print comic.) We have to draw the line somewhere or we will eventually have thousands of articles on webcomics. This webcomic does not meet WP:WEB as near as I can find. Herostratus 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, however a merge can be discussed on the talk page if needed. — CharlotteWebb 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Dream[edit]

The recent first AfD on this subject was overturned by DRV consensus in light of new information, for which, see the DRV. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total lack of notability --Orange Mike 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been announced as a single, and Keane are a fairly big band, so it's most likely notable. --[kazikame] 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - scheduled single release by a notable band on a major label. Release date is confirmed officially by both the band site and Island Records, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't come into play here. B.Wind 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. However, all speculative statements in the article (namely B-Sides and the mock cover) should be removed. Why is the article still protected? U-Mos 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was accidentally left protected when the page was restored for AfD per DRV, I have removed the protection so as not to hinder this AfD. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above. --Chappy84 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been officially announced MellonCollie 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest keep and definite - It has been announced, see? duh --Fluence 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are all of you "keep" advocates saying that there should be a Wikipedia article for every "single release by a notable band on a major label" in the history of music? Because that's what your reasoning implies. --Orange Mike 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To a main album article. We have no reason to give this single its own article and the verifiable info we have on it makes the article a stub. If we then get more info we can consider splitting it off again. JoshuaZ 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment - Yes, why shouldn't there be? U-Mos 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V. Apparent single-purpose accounts disregarded as they did not show that the subject was verifiable, much less notable. --Core desat 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of OBOT[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The Game of OBOT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. --Simonkoldyk 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if the talk page asserts that it was actually made up in school over a period of many days. It still fails to meet any notability or verifiability standards. Geoffrey Spear 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Its not harming anyone and to alot of people it means alot. Help make it a nation wide game. J_man2211 22:59, 29 November 2006

keep: If you delete this should you not delete games made up and played only in private schools? Or on wikepedia do they hav preference over state? You say that wikepedia is not for games made up one day- but isn't each great sport thought of spontaniously? -- daveyboy16 23:03, 29 November 2006.

Comment Yes but those sports are now played around the world and are notable you can ask people almost anywhere what Basketball or Soccer is; if you asked them what OBOT they wouldn't know.--Simonkoldyk 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) -- daveyboy16 20:43, 30 November 2006[reply]

Comment Yes but i was not talking about basketball and football. How many people outside of a private school education has heard of Eton Fives or other such games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by daveyboy16 (talk • contribs)

Comment "Eton Fives", 11,700 ghits.

"Game of OBOT", One ghit.

Looks like a lot of folks have heard of Eton Fives, there's even a lengthy and expensive book documenting every boring detail of the subject. Documented, notable, verifiable, that's what we're looking for here. Tubezone 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course, delete as it's non-encyclopaedic. But very funny, too. Gretnagod 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD G3 as joke vandalism article per WP:VANDAL. Zero ghits, WP:NFT,WP:NEO, appears to be a part of a string of joke vandalism articles from anon IP's and spa's from SE England, see also Max cards, Fosh (game), Handy Slappy, and Garden Hopping for more examples. Tubezone 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP We should keep. this from what simon has sed is, obvo a game that is a school sport and will only become a great international sport if we actually put it on wikipedia. This is the only way we can expand it...If you ask people what soccer or basketball is they know. Well they all started out as spontaenous games so lets extend this game...LIke Slamball.!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackilous (talk • contribs) — Jackilous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This is not part of a string of hoaxs, and this is the first i have heard of these hoaxs. This page has been edited from school where alot of people have access to the internet. Those other hoaxes are most likely from another student using the same computer. We are serious about OBOT and would like to see it kept on wikipedia as we believe it is a good sport/game worthy of acknowlegement. many thanks J_man2211 15:39, 30 November 2006 — J_man2211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Definately Keep This isnt a hoax, and on what grounds can it be deleted on? Why should a page be deleted because it appears to someone to be a hoax? Chrisboy2006 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Chrisboy2006 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obvious Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and this is undoubtedly - even admittedly - something made up in school one day. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a game in the hopes that it will catch on, nor is it a crystal ball predicting games that will catch on. Give this article about a non-notable game the death touch. --TheOther Bob 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's being used in vandalism - the link from the Royal motto in United Kingdom's infobox was edited to point to it. Terminate with extreme prejudice. -- Arwel (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

id just like to say i have nothing to do with OBOT as youll see if you go onto the OBOT history page. Chrisboy2006 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a game/sport that could become a world wide favourite. And it's definatly not a hoax. don't delete OBOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollis1 (talk • contribs) — Hollis1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete obviously. "could become" is irrelevant. Right now it's unknown and unverifiable. Fan-1967 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i am sorry for what Chrisboy2006 did to the united kingdom's moto. i have already had words with him stating that that wasnt the right thing to do and hope it doesnt reflect negatively on OBOT. J_man2211 19:44, 30 November 2006

His actions are not relevant. At this point the outcome of this discussion is quite clear. Fan-1967 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This game seems to me, to be quite valid. Regardless of whether or not it is a game, i think that it will be bigger. I'm sure that if an article was written about it, then it would be, also this would constitute it to stay on wikipedia. Also, im sure the people who created this page didn't intend it to 'advertise it on wikipedia, more share with the world. I suggest someone write about it in someway. User: Jackilous 21:00, 30 November 2006
Comment Why don't you put it on a MySpace page, then get your MySpace friends to play it? Then it might become notable and get into Wikipedia. Tubezone 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah thats what we are planning on doing and probably will do. however we would love to see it on Wikipedia, especially as we feel there is a wide enough following in north of hampshire to warrent it to stay on wikipedia user: j_man2211 21:08 30 November 2006

Wikipedia never wants to be the first place to post anything, only report on things which have been widely reported elsewhere. Fan-1967 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP OBOT, its the only game that as made our school recognisable. Court Moor is now on the net and all thanks to OBOT. If you dont like the game......then dont read about it, your choice!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigey13 (talk • contribs) — Paigey13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per all of the above. Eron 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A non-notable game invented two years ago by somebody. Delete, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 10:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think too many people are viewing this page as a vannity sight, to try and show-off. This is probably (as previously said) just some lads who are passionate. Keep. user:Jackilous 12:26, 2nd Decmeber (UTC)
Comment Jackilous has "voted" above as well - Jackilous, if you want to make an additional comment, the normal practice is to use something like "comment" rather than restating your "vote." (It's not really a vote, but nonetheless.) --TheOther Bob 16:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it gains significant notability, then it doesn't deserve recognition within an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising, nor is it an opportunity to promote something thought up in a day in hopes it will gain notability. Bungle44 10:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. There are NO references, so this article constitutes WP:OR. I agree that this article also is not notable according to WP:NFT. -- Shunpiker 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment then you both don't have human compassion. regardless of this being a website think about these kids. They have passion, and spirit.!! Think about it!86.133.215.154 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)user:jackilous[reply]
Comment Human compassion? Really? Not allowing someone to add non-encyclopedic material to an encyclopedia hardly seems to me the type of thing that's going to dampen their passion for life or the spirit in which their game is played. (A game, I might add, in which it is apparently a common move to try to hit people in their "groin area." If I ever played "OBOT," I'd want some human compassion - and a cup.) --TheOther Bob 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not adequately referenced, and not notable. Games are certainly invented at schools - Rugby appears to be a repeat-offender, bearing ultimate responsibility for Rugby Union, Rugby League, Rugby Fives, certain variants of Racquets, and, apocryphally, various unpleasant activities involving torturing small boys - but a game becomes notable when it is played widely, or for a long time. The game sounds like it might be fun, but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. In forming a consensus, I'd also like to encourage the closer of this AfD to consider the possibility that the votes to keep this article may all be concentrated in a small area of Hampshire. ( I'd also like to suggest that the players of this game consider making the ability to spell and punctuate a qualification for team membership. ) Have fun, boys ! WMMartin 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure vanity.Glendoremus 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure stupidity. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZDaemon[edit]

ZDaemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Its a source port of Doom, the article dosen't comply with the WP:SOFTWARE guideline nor with official policies WP:V or WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific, in what way does it not comply? I read WP:SOFTWARE and I disagree with your opinion, particularly when you have not specified in what way it does not comply. This equates to arresting someone saying that they stole, but you do not say what they stole or from where it was stolen. Please provide more detail for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Comment: As I can see on the talk page that this article has had a little trouble on what exactly should be put on it and is monitored by fans of this port, please remember saying it is notable, it comply's does nothing. AfD is not a vote! Providing links to coverage by a notable website does. --Simonkoldyk 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state that the site is monitored by fans, could you provide detailed and supporting evidence to this claim? Are you not interested in any of the articles in which you contribute? If I am a fan of Nascar, does that discount my contribution? By what authority are you to make such a claim? You say saying something is notable does not mean it is notable, yet you state the talk page is monitored by fans, does this make your claim any more notable? By what evidence do you make the claim that all contributors are fans? If you logic for deletion is subjective to the precedence of fans participating in the monitoring of a given article, then I am very concerned about what may come of this logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Would you please be more specific? Or cite an example? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
* Comment: Sure, see like [39] is an article for Halo 2 so it would prove that Halo 2 is notable, you need to find a article from a notable website about ZDaemon. --Simonkoldyk 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GameSpy Doom Port Note that they also reference Zdoom which is nominated for deletion. You may like this reference for the Skulltag Deletion as it will serve to show how irresponsible that deletion was and why it should be restored Doom Source Ports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Weak delete. What annoys me most is the insistence by obvious fans of the game to include crufty material about the game's clans. The "Criticism" section is unsourced and unverifiable, as is much of the rest of the article. No reliable third party sources to indicate its notability either, though I'll abstain if any can be found. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, per above. I'm just sick of having edit wars with people trying to get their clans link in the article. Also the whole article seems to be original research and needs to be rewrote and trimmed down. BJ^Talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that an editor would be inclined to have such a subjective opinion without presenting any counter points to the contrary of what has been presented. Stating that you disagree is not notable nor verifiable. We need you to present evidence to support your claims or this situation may be used as an example to nominate many other notable articles for deletion. We must work together in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. To do otherwise is irresponsible and may draw vast consequences. As a contributing reader, I do not wish to waste time undoing such activity. We must avoid setting a negative precedence.

You state "Obvious fans" yet site no reference or proof, this does not set a good example for new contributors as you are not practicing what you preach. You should also not express how contributions make you "feel" as it has little or nothing to do with the facts, rather is shows bias due to your acknowledgement in regards to how something makes you "feel". Again, we must be careful to act in the interest of the community and set a proper example, particularly when we are held to a higher level of accountability. As we can see below, a young and very impressionable student from AZ (as per his talk) has taken to your example and represents how he "feels" here in post. We must avoid such matters. His opinion is highly subjective and rather than discussing or making reference to his opinion, he surrenders himself to simply stating how he "feels" ("I'm just sick") without presenting any supporting evidence. Nor is he open to the possibility that his issue may be entirely due to the fact that his position is incorrect or his actions are not justified. Please note how he referenced your example directly "per above". This is a real world example of how acting irresponsible can have a negative effect and open the door for biased and subjective opinions. (Please also note that rather than expressing an opinion about how I "feel" I have taken the time to cite examples of what it is I am concerned about. We must act responsibly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it being "original research" (his words) can't have anything to do with it. Troll elsewhere, please. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in reference to his statement that the "Whole Article" was Original Research. I found that comment interesting as he also contributed to the Article in question. Thus he was contributing "Original Content" by his own admission.

As per What is a Troll? Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user.

Please refrain from name calling. It does not serve the Wikipedia Community nor does it help address the issue at hand. Thank you :-) 76.16.70.153 (talk · contribs)

I care this much right now. You weren't commenting on his addition to the article in question, and even if you were it is irrelevant. I can't spot any of his comments that add to the OR, merely those that remove fair chunks of it. No, you were saying that he was reasoning unfairly with emotion rather than neutrality. Not only is this unfounded (he did give reasons beyond being sickened by it), but it doesn't matter. Before all of that nonsense, you basically blamed myself for emotionally corrupting this poor student. That's uncivil, and is the very definition of trolling. Keep it up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your belief that he did not contribute to the article? If so, I would be happy to provide references to said. He User:Bjweeks made statements with no references.

Regarding the influencing of a young student. I never stated that you corrupted him in any way (we continue to see assumptions dominating reason and request for clarification), rather your example of casting how you felt over what your findings were based on facts, may have contributed to his post where he posted how he felt, rather than reference facts. You are clearly not giving me the benefit of the doubt as a first response. I am quite suprised to see an Administrator being presumptious to such a degree, that he/she would resort to name calling as a first response. You did not ask for me to elaborate or to clarify the intent of my post. What is uncivil sir, is not giving the beneift of the doubt, putting words into other peoples mouths, and resorting to name calling and threating bans because you don't agree with someone. I on the other hand offered to apologize if the intent of my post was misunderstood, apologized to you personal, and continue to behave in a very civil manner.

Great now I'm a "young and very impressionable student" and "mentally unstable". This is a AFD comment page, where people express opinions about the page, I'm so sorry that I didn't post every diff I have had to revert because people keep putting clan links or every paragraph on that page that is unsourced. It is also insulting to say that I can't form my own opinions. BJ^Talk 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are young. 2. Young people are impressionable. 3. You are a student in High School.

Thank you for your apology. Opinions about the page are reasonable and should be supported by references. The Clan links were indeed sourced as they are all listed on the front page of Zdaemon.org, Zdaemon.org is listed on GameSpy and Wikipedia, thus all notable sources. Perhaps your edits were subjective in nature and required more research before deletion? Many people tend to delete links without first discussing them. It is always prudent to discuss a deletion before assuming it is irrelevant.

1/2/3 Who cares? Your comments about be have nothing to do with we are discussing and are not well founded saying all you know about me is what is on my user page. If you couldn't tell the "apology" was sarcasm and in the case of the clans, only the clans names could be sourced not if the clans were notable nor the tidbit about them. BJ^Talk 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you care. If my comments have nothing to do about what we are discussing, why are you replying to them? It is best to lead by example. If you post a comment in a discussion, you should do so with the anticipation that someone may reply or question its subject matter. Thank you for acknowledging that you are sarcastic and that your apology was made without sincerity. It will help myself and perhaps others in putting weight into much of what you say as it may be sarcastic or made without sincerity.

Delete since, like other Doom source port Skulltag, ZDaemon has no coverage by reliable sources, thus failing WP:V. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpy Notable Source Please do more research in the future :-) Also, please take note to his basis for nominating this article for deletion, he is referencing a prior deletion, which, quite possible due to reference provided herein, may be been deleted without proper cause. A perfect example of my concern as it relates the effect a precedence may have on future decisions and actions on the part of contributors and editors alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
That link goes to a listing of Doom source ports. It is not an article about ZDaemon, but rather lists ZDaemon as another source port of Doom. To pass WP:V, it must have non-trivial coverage - that is, being something more than part of a simple list. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your logic states that only articles that discuss a given topic are notable? Could you elaborate please. Reasoning with your logic, if Google had a link to Zdaemon on it's front page stating that Zdaemon was a source port that you may wish examine, it would not lend any weight to the notability of Zdaemon? Many references have been provided.

Delete Due to the fact that other Doom source port was deleted due to the reasons NeoChaosX brought up. HarrisonHopkins 02:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have an opinion being formed based on the opinion of another contributor, who's original opinion may have been based on a false precedent. Gentlepersons, I highly recommend you take notice to these concerns for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Redirect (possibly merging whatever is verifiable) to Doom source port. Tizio 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not DeleteDue to recent facts presented on pages discussion. Notable sources and presented and need to be properly addressed. If this gets deleted, then I fear that it will be used as an example and excuse for others to delete other similar articles which fall under the pardigm for which this article has been nominated for deletion for. Other Source Ports being deleted does not justify deleting other source ports. As per WP:AFD we must be careful about letting prior precedence serve as grounds for parallel actions. This could lead to anarchy as contributors make aggressively nominate articles for deletion citing like-kind articles which have already been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Finally, I would like reference Problems where deletion might not be needed more specifically;
{stub}, {mergeto¦article}, {cleanup}, {POV check}, {POV check}, {cleanup-verify}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Merge and redirect to Doom source port. There is an ongoing effort to merge these source port articles together. --- RockMFR 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom source port; the effort to merge source port articles together is now finished. Bloodshedder 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Bloodshedder. It looks like that was a lot of work. Thank you for helping out here and bringing some sanity to the situation. You should request nomination as an administrator. Rather than wasting your time with name calling and casting your opinion, you used your efforts and intelligence to provide a solution. You are a great example of how an Administrator should conduct themselves. Bravo!

Redirect to Doom source port.--QuasarTE 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom source port, per above. BJ^Talk 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your time everyone. It would appear that the majority is agreeing that a redirect may be the right decision moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Well if non of the source ports are notable, I don't understand why it would work if they were all just put in one page. Also they are already all listed in the page before the merging began. --Simonkoldyk 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they aren't notable at all, they just aren't notable enough for their own articles. They still deserve to be described, plus have their articles on the Doom Wiki linked to. Bloodshedder 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct I do believe they should be mentioned; but, there is already a list of all the ports listed there with a link to a website if they have them and stuff about them; I don't see why they need another paragraph above as well. --Simonkoldyk 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be mentioned specifically because they are a) historically or technologically notable (ex. Boom, nxDoom) or b) fairly popular and in widespread use (ex. ZDoom). Bloodshedder 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sheraton hotels[edit]

List of Sheraton hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT a collection of external links. Despite being 100% blue links, we have no articles on any hotels on this list. humblefool® 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. --Simonkoldyk 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think we have articles listing, for example, every Wal-Mart location. 23skidoo 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A reader would be better served by going to the corporate website to get up to date info instead of a stale copy on Wikipedia. We do not need lists of everything that can be listed, like mailboxes or chain hotels. Edison 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or mere collections of external links. There is no encyclopedic value in having a list of every franchise of a business. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Marriott hotels. Khatru2 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or internet directories." This article is. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Mmoneypenny 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we change our policy on advertising by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Dan[edit]

Reverend Dan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by a single purpose account named "Laradio"

DJ whose sole claim to fame is doing the graveyard shift on a jesuit university radio station

No mention of either this show or its host on the "LA weekly" site

No mention of either this show or its host found on google apart from forums and geocities yandman 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://laweekly.com/music/live-in-la/la-weekly-music-awards-03/9879/

Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks" test. WMMartin 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lot of bitter wikifolks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.194.96 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the verifiability test or the Wikipedia is not a catalog of college radio station shows.-- danntm ^T _C 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seven years on a local Public Radio station doesn't make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arpwatch[edit]

Fails notability, and makes no mention of exactly what Arpwatch actually does. Diez2 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:SOFTWARE easily with multiple non-trivial references in published books: has an entire section in Linux Firewalls, Third Edition (Suehring & Ziegler, Novell Press [40]), as well as Wireless Hacks (Flickenger & Weeks, O'Reilly, 2005) and Real World Linux Security (Toxen, Prentice Hall, 2002)[41]. --Canley 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This tool is also distributed with the Knoppix Secure Tools Distribution

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is also in Debian (priority optional, and popular in popcon). - Cate |_Talk 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Canley. --Simonkoldyk 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful package, but I think a merge to ARP Spoofing would be more useful. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per commentary. --Dennisthe2 11:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Berger[edit]

Mark Berger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this professor notable enough? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - numerous publications listed in the article (although I think the list itself is probably unnecessary) and director of a center of some sort at a major university (which may or may not be notable). Geoffrey Spear 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the subject meets WP:PROF, this appears to be a resume, and Wikipedia is not a resume service. The article could also appear to some as a memorial, something else that Wikipedia is not. The late Mark Berger is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but this is not a Wikipedia article. Scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF. Just because it looks like a resumé means the article needs to be cleaned, not deleted. --Oakshade 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he was an able academic, however his works have not had a lasting impact on the field, as shown by the lack of links to this article from the articles discussing his field of expertise. I'm not saying he didn't contribute, like Nlu I'm saying he's of insufficient notability to merit an encyclopedia article. DrKiernan 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. This appears to be primarily a memorial, violating "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Iceberg3k 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fandemonium[edit]

Fandemonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable gaming event. Ghit testing fails due to the fact that many events also have this name, though this is the first result. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "non-notable". Articles have been published in many area newspapers, and the event has been featured on television news broadcasts from ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliates.

There are no other entertainment expos named Fandemonium, therefore no naming conflict.

It is not a "gaming event" either. It is a fan convention, featuring science fiction, fantasy, horror, and anime, as well as gaming.Ogredude 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there are other events named Fandemonium, such as this Also, area news papers tend to not prove notability, due to the small area of coverage. Though if you could provide proof of coverage by a major news network that isn't just a passing mention, that would definitely help its case. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the WP:V about local newspapers not being a valid source of verifiability.Ogredude 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they weren't. I said that coverage in a local newspaper generally isn't enough to warrant notability. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable source references to notability are provided. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - This organization has had multiple articles about it published in several Idaho newspapers, including The Idaho Statesman, the Idaho Press-Tribune, and the Boise Weekly. Unfortunately, none of these newspapers keep a reliable online archive of their articles. Paper copies of the articles are available. The organization has also been featured on the news of the local CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox affiliates. It has also been reviewed twice by an official representative of Steve Jackson Games. Ogredude 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a way to verify this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. We need to pull our paper copies of newspaper articles for citation, as none of the newspapers keep online archives. Ogredude 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Chick Bowen 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- xompanthy 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset Music Group[edit]

Page is just a bunch of pictures,nn group, someone keeps removing db and prods SkierRMH 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - assertion of notability appears to be based on a single award winning group signed to their label. However, this article would seem to indicate that they are likely a U.S. distributor. I cannot find any reasonable sources on the label itself via googling. -- Whpq 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does appear that Hatiras & Macca won a Juno Award, but we don't even have an article on them, the single was apparently on the Blow Media label, and I can't find anything they've done on Jetset (not that that alone would make Jetset notable). That leaves Jetset as an entirely nonnotable vaporware label, as far as I can tell. bikeable (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset Music Group is a fairly new label, with releases primarily on Vinyl. They are not a distribution company as you have stated, and they are actually becoming quite well known in the industry. Jetset Music Group is the parent company for Jetset Recordings. And as far as notability, awards do not equal success nor or they the end all be all of quality music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.157.64 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no assertion to notability that would qualify them for inclusion under WP:CORP.--Kchase T 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sewing Dragon[edit]

Contested prod. Patent nonsense. No google hits apart from mirror sites. None of the institutions mentioned exist Nuttah68 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not patent nonse, but it is a hoax -- Whpq 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a lot to say about the sewing dragon. Although it's existence is not readily proven, it is still a debatable myth. Why, look at bigfoot; sure, he is more widely known, but chances are he is fake. Every "myth" (quotations because sewing dragon exists!) needs a place to start. If the sewing dragon is deleted from wikipedia's archives, no one will ever be graced to learn about it, and by the time they do, November 27th of 2008 will have already passed. But please; it may be a hoax, it may be "nonsense", and for all you know, it could be real, just like bigfoot, so give the sewing dragon a chance. The sewing dragon would give you chance if he could. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.35.70 (talk)

Delete - Although the above user's argument has a certain appeal, the issue ends up coming down to verifibility. In the Yeti case, we can verify that there is a notable myth. In this instance, I can find little evidence to convince me that the Sewing Dragon is a myth subject to significant debate. The article's pictures also leave something to be desired. →Bobby← 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"relatively new origination" = Delete. Pictures too. --humblefool® 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page was replaced with comments by article creator.--humblefool® 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete this myth, why don't you delete other dragons, like the Chinese or Aztec dragons? There isn't any proof of those two. Yet, people still choose to believe in them. The people who believe in the Sewing Dragon should have just the same chance to express their believes. The only reason why it hasn't popped out previously is because it was only spoken of in close circles. Wikipedia is now giving the dragon it's chance to spread. Deleting this article would be an insult to those who believe in this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)

Comment - If you can provides reliable sources that can be used to verify this myth, then you will have met the criteria for article inclusion. -- Whpq 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The question isn't whether the dragon itself exists--the question is whether anyone other the author of the article and his/her friends have heard of it. WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. --Masamage 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Masamage has pretty much said what I would otherwise say. --Dennisthe2 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that the article is on Wikipedia, your friends can learn about this fascinating dragon. His background is quite interesting, and now more people will be able to experience the wonders of this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)

That is not what Wikipedia is for. That is what Geocities is for. Until the myth becomes established, it has no place here. Follow the rules. --Masamage 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This myth is established, it just isn't well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NFT and WP:OR before you continue to argue this point. If you refuse to read them, I have nothing else to say. --Masamage 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This myth is plausible and there should be no need to delete it. The reasearch seems detailed enough, so I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Roche (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete, complete and utter nonsense. No sources for the upcoming 'festival', blatant example of something made up in school one day.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately referenced, and strong smell of OR. WMMartin 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't for class projects, as it is not a free web host. --Core desat 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Senior High School Band Program[edit]

Davis Senior High School Band Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable; no evidence of notability actually given. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until December 8th and delete after presentation for school project, OR redirect/merge with Davis Senior High School so previous versions of the page remain and can still be presented. Tricklin 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Simonkoldyk 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no problem with a brief mention of the bands on the relevent high school page. However, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day including class projects. As such, the current article needs to go. →Bobby← 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fine band, fine article, no evidence it is more notable than most other high school bands, drama programs, foorball teams, etc. Such articles can be condensed a bit and included in an article about the school. Make a copy of it to turn in for your project. Edison 20:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability of this school band. Brief mention could be made at Davis Senior High School, but the keep rationale of retaining this for a school project or redirecting to maintain page history simply is not a valid keep reason per Wikipedia is not a free webhost. I agree with Edison, you should make a copy of this now to turn in.--Isotope23 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Webhost], put on their page, if absolutely necessary - but it's not as it's a one time thing...SkierRMH 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has told me here on my talkpage that they've saved a copy without the AfD template. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least until the creator can present it. I am a member of this band and find think this kind of thing is very positive for us. Thehyphybus 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a webhost for class projects. --TheOther Bob 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with hyphy, I think we are worthy of this kind of exposure. I mean, we have been in the newspaper, after all. Tophatfrenches 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way - to the extent that (as I assume) this article is written by the students in the band program, that brings up conflict of interest concerns as well. It's generally not a good idea for someone in the band to write an article about themselves - far better to let people who aren't connected with you do it. If people who aren't connected with the band had independently decided that they were notable and should have an article, it would be far more likely that they really were notable. --TheOther Bob 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keepo, pero nesessito articulo de bando. Tocan las banjos. PedroDeGalles 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article should be combined into main article about the school. Reeves 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for school projects (per earlier comment). Vegaswikian 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. WP:RS and WP:V also a problem. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. No deletion here; you may merge at your leisure. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fight Special[edit]

Unsourced POV entry on episode of a shortlived BBC comedy show. I'm not sure if this should be deleted or reworked and merged into KYTV, but it can't stay on its own. No vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect KYTV. I don't think there's very much material that's suitable for merging. (Same goes for KYTellyThon and Fly on the Walls.) Demiurge 10:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 18 episodes of this show, and the pilot episode. If this page is merged into KYTV then it would follow that all the other episodes would be documented in the same way, and putting the whole lot on one page is going to create a very long entry for KYTV. I wrote a lot of information for the other two pages and was planning to do the rest of the pages for Series 1 and 2 when I have time (Series 3 to follow later). I think the KYTV pages would be a lot more useful and interesting if they continue in the existing format, or something similar. JamminBen 12:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KYTV, if necessary. There is no need for separate articles on every epsiode of a TV programme and merging will not create an unnecessarily large article. Emeraude 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not in favour of a merge into KYTV. Given the current amount of info on the episode pages I think that merging WILL create an unnecessarily large article. It might be better to create a "list of KYTV episodes" page with descriptions for each. This would be more consistent with other TV shows. JamminBen 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "no need for seperate articles". This is a free encyclopaedia where-by people share all knowledge that they have on just about everything known. The KYTV page has links on every episode, most red. Each show had its own set-up, its own guests, its own unique features and many people may be interested to know about elements of them without actually knowing where to start. It is down to those with some knowledge (eg. JamminBen) to reveal what it is we know. In time, infoboxes can be placed with all kinds of special features giving it a more sophisticated look. See the Only Fools & Horses individual episode style. They have entries for most of their episodes and the information from a single show in OFAH is just as relevant and suitable as that for KYTV; the point is that many articles accross Wikipedia are far shorter with much lacking information and they seem to survive with no interruption. Another thing, if it is decided to merge, will that same person remove all the links on the KYTV page? If not, will it simply not not invite other editors who stumble accross it later to start again? Take a look at any world city, any well-known event, any large Wikipedia page and go back to its first edit; see how sometimes it took months and months before it expanded, see how many are still thriving now, with dozens of editors, disputed issues on Talk etc. Without the chance, such phenomena cannot come about and it is otherwise pointless even having a free encyclopaedia. Evlekis 08:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluebird Songs[edit]

The Bluebird Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Non notable publication with minimal distribution and life Nuttah68 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable because it was a significant case in which journalistic rights were violated. When Hugh Kane said he "spoke for the staff," he in turn silenced the other members on their views. This could damage the other journalists reputation in that it went against what a journalist could actually support.

Yes, this publication had a small life and distribution, but that is because of the journalistic sins committed by Hugh Kane. This article can easily show how journalistic sins can abruptly end a publication and cause several journalists to leave in disgrace.
This article should stay ~ USER: TIDAL5

Delete The article does not assert notability. No sources are cited, can any of the information be verified? The article describes criticism, but criticism by whom? Published where? The purpose of Wikipedia is not to show the effects of "journalistic sins". Chondrite 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge seems supported, the tags for a merge have already been added if anyone wants to finish it up. W.marsh 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Rock City[edit]

San Antonio Rock City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy, so brought here for community discussion. Herostratus 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as nominator, this is a procedural nomination. Herostratus 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 619 Ghits; non-notable. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mitch Clem, along with Nothing Nice to Say. -Switch ^t 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a lot bigger now than it was when it was nominated. I'm of the understanding that this comic has been referred to in non-web publications relating to comics and so forth. I don't have access to these, so I couldn't really say what they are though. Drett 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mitch Clem. Article has no cites and I couldn't find multiple independent non-trivial articles on the comic. The non-trivial articles that I did see were about the author, suggesting a merge is the right solution. -Kubigula (ave) 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, or, failing that, Merge per earlier comments. WMMartin 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I do think that a historical list (probably including a timeline graph) of all the display resolutions Apple has offered and when could be useful as a historical record. If anyone is interested in creating that article, ask me or another administrator if you this deleted content. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple computer display resolution[edit]

Apple computer display resolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Um, who wants to research a list on all the computer displays (and their resolutions) Apple Computer makes? It could possibly be merged into Apple Computer, but it would be a long shot, so I would say delete. Diez2 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I haven't presented the information in a sensible way, but a lot of this information is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Atchius 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an Apple technical reference manual -- Whpq 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. --Simonkoldyk 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was a comprehensive historical list of resolutions, I could see some value to it. But since it only lists current products, it should go. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one hell of a lot of information that is not available on Wikipedia. That is not an argument for putting it all in. I agree that Wikipedia is not an Apple tech ref manual - delete. Emeraude 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above 30sman 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. A merge is still possible, but would need further discussion. W.marsh 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States immigration debate[edit]

United States immigration debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete this page and merge the contents into Illegal immigration to the United States. The focus of this page is on legislation proposed for the 109th Congress which is soon to be concluded. In January the 110 congress forms and the debate must start anew, and most of the wording will have to be deleted from the page. Most of the information not related to legislation is already duplicated on the Illegal immigration to the United States page, or should be on that page. Why keep a page that must be overhauled every two years, it would be better to include a section on “Illegal immigration to the United States” and keep that up-to-date. Wayoutguy 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — Wayoutguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: "Delete and merge" isn't an option; GFDL requires that some trail of authorship be maintained. Either pick "delete", or drop the nomination in favor of a merge (which can be proposed and carried out outside of AFD). Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have no problem with a detailed article regarding historical or current events. Articles regarding newsworthy historical issues are common and welcome. The article itself appears to be well footnoted (although I'd like to see more references at the bottom). As for the nom's suggestion that the new congress will change the debate, well...great. This article (or an improved version of it) could be a good first look at where this debate has come from and where it's currently at -- almost the definition of living history, yes? Lacking an AfD argument regarding verifiability or original research (neither of which seem to apply), I don't see what the problem is with this article. -Markeer 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Markeer. This debate has been in play since 2004, possible 2001 (see article), and will continue. Congressional cycling doesn't stop it. If there was a substantive break in the content, as opposed to new legislation, it would merit moving, not deleting this article. I'd love to see early 20th century US Immigration Debate one day.--Carwil 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The underlying issue is illegal immigration. What congress intends to do about illegal immigration should be included in that article. Seems to me that a page titled "united states immigration debate" is just an excuse for wikipedians to debate themselves, and wikipedia is not a forum for debates. Dullfig 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWhat the US congress intends to do in each sesion is notable as history. DGG 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dullfig. WMMartin 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farraboya[edit]

Farraboya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod removed on article on website that does not assert notability and would seem to fail WP:WEB Daniel Case 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom, meets db-web. Diez2 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Simonkoldyk 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (A7). Absolutely non-notable website (no google hits, not even for farraboya.com!).

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

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

The result was Keep.--Kchase T 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Van Corteza[edit]

Lee Van Corteza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion contested at WP:DRV and brought here for consideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BIO by playing at the highest level in his sport as evidenced by his participation in world championships. -- Whpq 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Participation in World Pool Championships (e.g. last 32 in 2003). No idea why this was ever a speedy. - fchd 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the person won $2500 in all of 2005, he isn't a professional, and therefore fails WP:BIO. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the amount of money he earns is a factor. WP:BIO does not specify a minimum income to meet notability guidelines. And in just googling through google news, there's lots of articles about him such as this and this which would seem to indicate multiple independent coverage. -- Whpq 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - $2500 may not be "professional" enough for some people, but in the Philippines it's a big sum of money; not many Filipinos can earn that much money in less than a year, even more so in a month or even a day (just as Lee Van did in this contest). --- Tito Pao 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - joining professional international pool events makes a player considered professional. the last of which, was the 2006 World Pool Championships.--RebSkii 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Several participations at the highest level in his sport, even reaching top 32. Also winning several gold and other medals at big sports events. The amount of money he earns in a specific year is not a factor on WP:BIO which he meets in more than one guidelines. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Please see the references I added, the latter establishing that Corteza is ranked in the 188th slot in world standings by the international governing body of billiards. Meets WP:BIO. Specifically, the standard for "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors," as well as being a person who has been "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person," considering both the references in the article and multiple Filipino newpspaper articles found through Google news.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first speedy deletion was probably warranted, the second one wasn't. The person seems to meet the notability guidelines, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gold medalist at the Southeast Asian Games. --Howard the Duck 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has beed added to Philippine notice board. --Howard the Duck 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, the SEA games is a major sporting event in Southeast Asia, much as the Commonwealth games are for members of the British Commonwealth. --- Tito Pao 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Participated in amateur and professional international events. RebSkii 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, if only because the keeps are so hesitant. Sourcing is in order. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Babes[edit]

Asian Babes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Porn magazine that has no notability and no verification. All I can figure out from here is that this magazing displays women of several ethnicities. Big whoop. Diez2 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It has to be said that this grot mag is fairly notable, if only because Private Eye constantly refers to this magazine in relation to its proprietor, Richard Desmond (qv that page). Richard W.M. Jones 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - entirely notable magazine that gets plenty of press mentions even in the staid Guardian here and here. The clincher is being commented on by the ubiquitous Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Indie here :-) TerriersFan 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is mandatory to mention this per every article on Richard Desmond. Catchpole 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loathsome as it may be, it is certainly notable. Emeraude 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very, Very Weak Keep and {{cleanup}}; additional work needs to be done on the article to include some sort of information that demonstrates the magazines' importance. A noted journalist saying she read it is borderline, at best; the journalist, while well-known and fairly controversial, doesn't cover pornography, so it's the published personal opinion of someone, not a newsworthy item regarding the magazine itself. As for the magazine being sold and who its current owner is, that's an example of newsworthy information—but content about why, when, and how it was sold needs to be explained/documented in the article, not just in the external links. The point of an encyclopedia article is to provide information. The point of the references is to be able to verify that information, not direct readers elsewhere to obtain the information itself.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is not subjective and this one meets multiple published sources. Like the magazine itself or not, it's notable. Seraphimblade 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spunk Loving Sluts is referenced far more in media coverage of Desmond, and should probably have its own article as well. As, presumably, should Mega Big Ones, Skinny and Wriggly, Double Sex Action and Mothers In Law, all of which I can find referenced in mainstream media seeking to do Richard Desmond down. WP:PORN, invoked here, must distinguish between coverage of Desmond and coverage of any one of his titles. The man is notable: the title is not. Delete and redirect to Richard Desmond. Vizjim 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unclear what part of WP:PORN you're referring to? It seems mainly to deal with images. As to the other publications-yes, if they've received a large amount of mainstream coverage, they likely pass notability as well. Usually, things that are controversial have an -easier- time with notability-people write about them! Seraphimblade 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. I meant WP:CORP. Vizjim 06:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earstroke[edit]

Not notable online reocrd label/store/download site with 254 Unique Google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nondescript two-year-old label in an article that doesn't bother to identify a single act signed to it. When/if it becomes more significant, a substantive article could be written for it... but not now, apparently. B.Wind 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expand rather than delete? Lugnuts 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? What sources are there that demonstrate that Earstroke satisfies either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC? I've seen none so far. If it were a notable record/CD label, notable acts on it would have been identified by now. So far.... nada. B.Wind 22:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence has been presented to support notability. Simply existing and being in a particular business is not per se notable. WMMartin 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Slappy[edit]

Contested prod: Non-notable game invented ~~in school~~ during band practice one day. No references, WP:NFT, etc. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Simonkoldyk 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Montco 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like more work from the same wonderful cabal of hoaxpuppets who brought you Fosh (game), Max cards, and The Game of OBOT Redirect to Red Hands per Katr67. Tubezone 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is not a hoax, this game is genuinely being play be a large social group, largely made up of musicians, across scotland and australia. --Zeusbeard 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Zeusbeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Why should it be deleted? What does it matter it was invented during a school band practice? Games have to be invented somewhere??!! Chrisboy2006 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Chrisboy2006 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as obviously failing WP:NFT. Geoffrey Spear 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Redirect This already exists at Red Hands. Katr67 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I play this game. Don't be stupid, of course it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.190.243 (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Red Hands. This game has been played by American school children for decades, but without the vocalization. B.Wind 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't add a redirect, as we're not in the business of adding non-notable local slang to Wikipedia. WMMartin 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds maccabi[edit]

Leeds maccabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Under-15s football club. Fails WP:CORP by being far short of the requirement that they be a senior team in levels 1-10 of the English football league system. Previously prodded but prod was removed. Qwghlm 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, junior team. Oldelpaso 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --Chappy84 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Simonkoldyk 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. - fchd 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as miles and miles and miles away from notability, although I must say I do fancy paying a visit to their ground of unlimited capacity. Do they play at the venue used in the BBC advert for their coverage of the World Cup where Frank Lampard was about to take a penalty and "the whole world" was in the stadium......? ChrisTheDude 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 --Angelo 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete м info 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felicitation[edit]

Felicitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nonsense "definition" of a real word, not an encyclopedic topic. Russ (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and note that the name of tha article does not match the word being defined in the article body. -- Whpq 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article name is "misspelled," ironically enough. "Falicitation" appears to be a neologism (by the bottom line of the so-called dicdef)... and there is no sourcing whatsoever. B.Wind 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Complete twaddle. "Félicitations" is french for congratulations. Ohconfucius 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't even know what the word describes. Felicitation or Falicitation? Ichbinbored ^talk 12:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Seconds of Love[edit]

2nd nomination: Disputed prod. Can't speedy because last nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Seconds of Love) was speedied before the AfD could close. Anyway, this fails WP:BAND. NOTE: Please do not speedy delete, please vote delete or keep. Diez2 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band is fronted by Joel Veitch, most famous for rathergood.com and the B3ta collective sites, both notable indeed. But is the band notable on its own? ~~I think not - merge with Joel Veitch.~~ B.Wind 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the additions by TruthbringerToronto, I can say "Yes" Keep the stub.B.Wind 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added references, including one from http://www.nme.com If the band has toured nationally within the United Kingdopm, it passes WP:MUSIC on that basis. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again per TT, but this should have been kept the first time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TT. --Ars Scriptor 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added refs and comments by TruthbringerToronto. --Oakshade 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TT. Being fronted by Joel Veitch also makes it pass WP:MUSIC. --Lijnema 18:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In cases of living persons the question of reliable sources is paramount. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scherf[edit]

Steve Scherf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article appears to be non-notable with fewer than 1,000 ghits total. The page is unsourced and several attempts to source it have failed due to a lack of reliable sources. Furthermore, the page has become a magnet for disruption as one or more editors, and/or sockpuppets, have continously attempted to add unsourced defamatory material which could result legal liability for wikipedia. In short, there is simply no way that the presence of this article justifies the disruption and potential liability it represents. The best thing for the project is to delete this page. Doc Tropics 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I don't know where your motivies are; but, we don't delete articles here just so that its not a magnet for disruption. Cnet's News.com [42] is notable enough for me. --Simonkoldyk 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The link you listed provides a long, detailed article about Gracenote, but only 2 very brief mentions of Steve Scherf, one of which refers to him as a "helpful buddy". My motive is to remove an article with limited encyclopedic content. "Helpful buddy" seems to represent the upper limit of notability; a rather low threshold for inclusion. Doc Tropics 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good point, delete per above. --Simonkoldyk 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doc asked me to take a peek, and nothing I see in the article at this time seems to justify inclusion. I don't think that "pontential liability" is a good reason to delete a page-- but "non-notability" certainly is. --Alecmconroy 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - As one of the editors who has been trying to help improve the article, I agree with Doc Tropics. Oh, and I think WP:LEGAL does give us grounds for deletion over liability. The Kinslayer 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. let me clarify: potential "potential liability" isn't good grounds. Actual "potential liability" is. :) That was a weird sentence, I wonder if it makes any sense to anyone but me? --Alecmconroy 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think liability already includes the concept that litigation may not follow even when there are good grounds for it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If we really and truly are doing something wrong under tort law and we could be liable, then it's a valid reason, regardless of the actual probability of a lawsuit occurring. If, however, there's merely a concern that maybe, possibly, we might be doing something wrong or that there might be a potential someone could accuse us of doing something wrong, then don't use that as a pre-emptive reason to try and fix something that verywell might not be broken. But, that whole debate is moot here, since there's ample reason for deletion regardless. --Alecmconroy 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason the man is notable is because he is in charge of Gracenote. This article about him was a very short stub until recent attempts to continue an edit war started on an article about his company. Let's keep the edit war confined to the article on Gracenote and the associated request for mediation. If the Gracenote edit war ever dies down and an acceptable version is hammered out, then perhaps we can see if he is notable for anything else besides Gracenote and if an article longer then 3 sentences can be written about him personally. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a review of the pages indexed by Google (of which, only about 330 are unique—Google's hit estimates are usually high) doesn't indicate any articles focusing on Scherf, just on his companies. Notability guidelines recommend multiple, independent reviews whose primary subject is the individual. While Scherf's CDDB and Gracenote contributions may just border on being "part of the enduring historical record in [his] specific field" (see WP:BIO), most of his notability is covered in the company articles and, if deemed notable enough, possibly a redirect could be used. Still, I lean primarily toward a deletion, since someone doing a Wikipedia search for him will find him in those articles anyway. As a final note, it might be interesting to observe that almost half of the unique Google hits (about 150 of the 330) relate to a specific news story, as evidenced in this Google search. Dall ben 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doc Tropics consulted me about what to do and I recommended this nomination. The article is at most a low-borderline candidate for inclusion and the page has been target of repeated attacks. The subject has requested deletion and we might as well respect the request. This isn't George W. Bush or Oprah Winfrey. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to either CDDB or Gracenote. BTW, it's interesting that the IP address which created this article is from Gracenote. :-) bogdan 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Amanduhh 23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only valid reason for deletion cited by the nom is lack of notability determined by google hits. However our notability policy states, notability can be determined if (as one example)

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Then read 2004 World Technology Awards where it says

“ In 1995, Steve Scherf created an on-demand Internet based CD recognition service designed to recognize CDs being played on a PC. The service quickly became extremely popular amongst early Internet users who shared it with their friends, who in turn, submitted their own CDs to the service. Due to the viral nature of the online database, it quickly grew to include all kinds of music genres, including international CD submissions from 130 countries.... The service is now used in over 140 million devices globally, ranging from PC media players, portables as well as home and car stereos ”

Also 1000 ghits is notable for a businessman. Its not like we're talking about a member of the shoiwbiz industry, 1000 websites talking about the owner of a company certainly passes the ghit test in my mind. Glen 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, the subject of the article is far more notable than many subjects here on Wikipedia. Just for his creation of CDDB and the huge controversy surrounding it would be sufficient, but also his company Gracenote is a substantial current player in the digital music scene. Second, it doesn't bloody matter what the subject of the article wants. This isn't about his wishes. And he does not make any assertion of his own non-notability. Quite the opposite; He asserts that he is SO notable that the article would be a vandal target. If we cave in to this, what else will we cave in to? The integrity of Wikipedia depends on being independent of the wishes of its subjects.--BenBurch 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly and obviously notable, and BenBurch is right, his desires aren't at all relevant as long as the article is kept to standards of biography of living persons. Un focused 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The last four users appear to have ulterior motives, as one of them has already taunted user Scherf on his talk page. They were almost certainly brought here by today's slashdot activity and may be attempting to interfere with the process of deletion out of malice. That an article may be a target for vandalism seems a very poor reason indeed for judging it noteworthy. This person does not appear exceptionally noteworthy otherwise. Also, there may be legal problems here, per other user's comments above. At most it should link to the Gracenote article. Winecellar 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — Winecellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. In fact, the only edits from this account are to this page Glen 05:38, December 4, 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a lurker, and prefer to not edit. This debate caught my notice, however, and I see no reason why I should not have the right to voice my opinion here. Winecellar 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only vague assertion of notability comes from a computer company he is involved in, and a minor scandal about its sale. After existing for over 2 years, this "article" consists of only 6 sentences. Don't "clearly and obviously" notable subjects normally have more than 6 sentences, especially after that period of time? If he is so inherently controversial, where are the huge numbers of allegations and citations that such things involve? There is simply not enough verifiable material to support an article on this subject. Doc Tropics 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not imply a long article. In fact, articles should be as short as possible. --BenBurch 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can trim all the articles down to 6 sentences, we'll be in great shape...think of the savings in bandwidth : ) Doc Tropics 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Glen. JamesMLane t c 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above deletion comments. I agree that it appears many of the comments have been motivated out of malice. This seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia of being a complete and unbiased source of information. Siggy123 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)— Siggy123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - Actually its just one single sentence that was accused of being malicious, not 'most of the comments'. The Kinslayer 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to all four "keep" comments that appeared just after a slashdot story linked to this article. I find it highly suspect that there were no "keep" arguments here until that story appeared. Yes, only one of the four taunted the subject of the article, but their common vote and contemporaneous nature of the votes are suspicious. Winecellar 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The debate over Gracenote / CDDB is for that page, not for here. --Elijah 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above deletion comments. Paulquinn00 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)— Paulquinn00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above. barnamink And yeah Doc Tropics before you point it out, I have few edits, but I am a heavy Wikipedia user, not a troll. As such I'm interested in having factual and unbiased content.— Barnamink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep per Glen. The amount of controversy over this guy should make clear that it's not just his company that's making news, he personally is doing so as well. Wikipedia should therefore have an entry on the fellow. Philip ^(Respond?) 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The presence of SPA tags appended to the comments of new contributors is not an attempt to discount their comments, nor does it imply trolling or other improper behaviour. These tags are widely used as a service to the closing admin, to provide them with background information potentially relevant to the discussion. I felt it was appropriate to use them here, despite the fact that the new contributors are supporting my nom of this article. Thanks for participating in the discussion; I hope you stay and make further contributions to WP. --Doc Tropics 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A check user on these new editors might be informative.--BenBurch 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And completely in violation of WP:AGF. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the part of that policy that states you DON'T have to assume good faith if you believe there is evidence to the contrary. The Kinslayer 09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Monaghan[edit]

John Monaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Autobiography-does not belong on wikipedia - WK:NN Renrenren 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) User is editing his own page. Only link is to his personal website. His restoration initiative described on his website is interesting, but does not warrant a personal page on wikipedia. --Renrenren 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear COI issue. Even of written by someone else, not notable in any real sense. Notabilty seems to be asserted by the "Certificate of Environmental Citizenship" award - I don't know, but that doesn't sound very exclusive to me. Emeraude 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable autobiography. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete obviously non-notable.--Hatch68 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per complete lack of notability of this individual per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines and well as WP:V with geocities.com links and no reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy obviously this is someones autobiographical vanity bio... move it to his user page. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But even if this were userfied, it would still be deleted sooner or later per WP:USER, wouldn't it? 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States[edit]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete I am the original author of this article (HanleyBri), and was a founding elder of this denomination. The WPCUS was discontinued approximately in 2010 - with two ministers and myself going into the RPCNA and another minister going into the Hanover Presbytery. I recommend this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanleyBri (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. According to its webpage, it has five congregations. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no independent references to substantiate the notability of this splinter group of 5 congregations established this year. Their church magazine and website did not state their membership totals or provide other evidence they were important enough to have an article about their new denomination. Wikipedia is not for purposes of advertising or promoting a new enterprise which has not otherwise achieved importance and notability. Edison 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Continuing groups like this one are an active subject in many denominations (seeWikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism for one I'm more familiar with). I didn't know the Presbyterians were having the same debates, but based on the Anglican precedent I think this one should stay. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your first sentence. Please rephrase/elaborate. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Now maybe if tehre were something in the article explaining why they split off and if it was over something juicy it could stay but as it is, nope. Otto4711 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article does include that information, for those able to read between the lines.
'They proclaim creationism within the space of six normal length 24 hour days. '

'They affirm male leadership reflected in ordination to church office.'

The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) doesn't require a belief in Young Earth Creationism, ordains women, and in general is a mainline liberal denomination. These folks reject all of that and seem closer to Scotland's Wee Frees. [forgot to sign!] -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles shouldn't require readers to read anything other than the lines. An article that keeps its information between the lines is useless. If there were verifiable sources that explained the history of what I'm assuming is some sort of schism between this group and the main body of the church, then that would be potentially a good article. Otto4711 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading on their website, it seems like they split because they didn't like the changes that had been made to the Westminster Standards since the 1600s. In any case, they're very new and very small and don't seem to have made much of a splash. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I said in a similar AfD, we either delete all religious orders/ groups or we keep all -- the only way to demonstrate that Wikipedia is secular and not religiously biased Alf photoman 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought experiment: Let's say two geographically remote, nondenominationl tiny churches of little worldly significance come together to form a group which they call Tiny Churches of North America. This group is established to restore the purity of the faith. It never gets any press coverage, never grows, and peters out after 20 years. Is it worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia at the beginning of its existence? At the end? I'd say no on both counts. What if it had five small churches? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about small non-demoninational churches uniting here, but a separation from a large and well-established body. This isn't just about the Westminster Presbyterians, or about Presbyterians. The same sort of separation is happening throughout American protestantism, and (at least in Anglican circles) worldwide. I'm arguing for keeping this article because it's illustrative of the larger phenomenon. (BTW, we do seem to have a large number of articles on various "Popes" who claim that they're the real Roman Catholic Church. I don't recall AfD discussions about them, but maybe I'm just too new.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which large and well-established body did they separate from? As far as I can tell, they split off from another small group. I agree with you about documenting the phenomenon of schisms, but I don't think it follows that every minor split need be given its own page. Some just aren't that notable or even footnotable (see WP:N). As for the "real" popes, some are notable and others aren't. If I claimed to be pope, I don't think I'd deserve a page. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is not a question of numbers but a question of permanence. Take any denomination and they could disappear in 20 years and be just a footnote in history -- yet there will be a footnote and a good encyclopedia has an explanation for these footnotes Alf photoman 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This article neither asserts its own notability nor does it seem that substantive, verifiable information from independent reliable sources is available. It certainly fails the Google test. A Presbyterian Church History professor has the most substantive reference I could find on his blog. Still, while I wouldn't object to this denomination showing up in the context of a larger article, it doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own page. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert notability. Weak keep as notability seems to have been established below. Chondrite

'Keep per AlfDGG 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory and should not have an article for every single religious denomination, sect, or splinter group in existance, regardless of notability. Excluding non-notable religious organizations is in no way evidence that Wikipedia is non-secular. Including non-notable organizations would provide evidence only that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. The individual non-notable groups may or may not be part of a larger trend, but the trend itself, if it is sufficiently notable, is properly documented in an article about the trend rather than a lot of articles about non-notable organizations. Chondrite 09:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This new denomination was reported in the Banner of Truth magazine in 2006 and has representation in five states in the Union. Also of interest is that international discussions with groups in England and Australia are on their way. Mind you this is not just five congregation - but this is a denomination which have locked arms together. In fact it is the only full subscription denomination that I know of in the United States and the only American Presbyterian denomination that has a substitution fund for it's ministers. -- Note: It was commented that we are like the Wee Frees - however we are more like The Wee Wee Frees. HanleyBri | Talk 9:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-trivial discussion in Banner of Truth would help to establish notability (but the guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources). Banner of Truth issues for 2006 do not seem to be available online. Can you provide a quote from the article showing that coverage is non-trivial? -- Chondrite 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." [Banner of Truth, April Issue, page 14] Note: We were also mentioned in the British Church Newspaper on January 3rd 2006. -- HanleyBri 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that these independent sources can be verified, I am changing my opinion from delete to weak keep. Chondrite 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HanleyBri, I am not yet convinced. Re international discussions: the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and future, potential significance is not a factor in current significance. Re having churches "in five states of the Union": I see only four states listed on the denomination's webpage, but even then, since there are only five congregations total, that they are in four or five states doesn't seem particularly notable. As for the quote, I don't think two sentences that merely state the existence of the denomination qualifies as non-trivial coverage. What did the British Church Newspaper have to say? This is an American denomination; did any American publications take note of the WPCUS? What is a "substitution fund" and why does it make the WPCUS notable? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: 'The WPCUS is concerned at the spread of liberal teaching (such as Federal Vision theology) within Presbyterianism in the USA. Federal Vision theology questions doctrines such as Justification by Faith, and the Perseverance of the Saints. In the event of various USA presbyterian groupings failing to deal firmly with such liberalizing trends, the WPCUS could well prove to be a new home for individual Presbyterian churches and minister who are unhappy with the stance taken by their own denominations.' As to your question regarding five states; we plan to have a congregation in Delaware in short order. As to your question on a substitution fund, sorry I meant to write Sustentation fund. It's a means of congregations joining together financially and there is an entire history of it's use from Charles the Second of England and its continued use. You will find a partial mention under the Free Church of Scotland (1843-1900)/ Under Finances -- HanleyBri 6:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I have studied the ferment and churn of British and North American Presbyterianism for almost 40 years. Splitting, formation, and merging of denominations of various sizes is an important part of that history. Many small groups have come existence for a brief time but have lasting influence upon the English speaking Presbyterian and Reformed landscape. For example, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) came into existence in 1965, and disappeared in 1982 when they were received in to the larger Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The RPCES was itself a merger of elements from the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA). Though the RPCES remained a denomination for only 17 years, it is indisputable they have a continuing influence upon the PCA. Their brief history is essential to understanding American Presbyterianism.
I’m a minister of the denomination from which some of the WPCUS congregations come, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Yet, I recognize the WPCUS has taken an unique confessional position, reaffirming the original version not only of the Westminster Standards but also the original form of government and worship approved in England and Scotland in the 1640's. In this, they offer the possibility of union with other like minded groups on the basis of historic confessional Presbyterianism. Their similarity to older existing Scottish and Irish denominations also makes them notable. Whatever their future may be, their efforts should be noted by Wikipedia if it is to be a reliable and useful reference tool. Jglennferrell 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)J. Glenn Ferrell[reply]

The point of WP:Notability is that any subject of sufficient modern or historical importance to be included in this encyclopedia will have received coverage by multiple independent sources. Chondrite 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this Notability thing fairly new? I've been editing on Wikipedia now and then for nearly two years, and have come across loads of instances of historical and present-day individual churches and church buildings (let alone denominations) having an article on Wikipedia, without anyone objecting. I'm starting to wonder whether there is a complete change of atmosphere on Wikipedia, with nowhere near the level of freedom there once was. It seems to be getting much more like government and corporations in the way people are trying to patrol/control it. Not the friendly place it once was! On looking at the Notability page I see that it is heavily disputed, and personally I often go to Wikipedia for information I can't find readily elsewhere. And where would Notability leave articles about long-forgotten people who were very well known in their day but who are only covered in books, not on the net! This is the sort of thing Wikipedia is ideal for. Give Wikipedia back to the people, and stop the stuffy academic types controlling it!

--PeterR 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)--PeterR 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, so there is room for many subjects that would not be covered in a traditional encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory, so some criteria for inclusion need to be met. Removal of articles on non-notable subjects is an important function. The existance of similar articles on non-notable subjects is not a reason to include any article. Although details are disputed, there seems to be a broad consensus (as reflected in the various notability guidelines) that coverage by multiple independent sources is a fundamental criterion for inclusion. Quoting Jimbo : "It's all about whether we can write a proper article with reliable third party sources and no original research." [43] There is no requirement that sources be available online. Chondrite 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. We're not here to predict the future, so whether this denomination grows or shrinks is of no concern. What I can't work out is whether it's notable or not. Is there an article for "assorted small fundamentalist sects arising by schism from Presbyterianism" ? If there is, we have an obvious course of action. If not, I'm not sure. WMMartin 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sergent[edit]

Non-notable and would need major amounts of cleanup besides. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ Delete. A google search confirms both the person and the technique the article claims he is associated with - however, I was unable to verify the link for this critical claim. Once the claim is verified, my vote will change to keep. --Sigma 7 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments, I'm convinced. --Sigma 7 05:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for Sergent "Open Sandwich Technique" returns 2 results; one of them is the page under AfD, the other doesn't make any sort of link between them; therefore, the claim is probably false. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete 95% of the article, except for the obscure reference to a dental technique, sounds like something made up in school one day so absent sources, delete it. Edison 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HOAX WP:BOLLOCKS -- Whpq 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is, this is a hoax, vandalism, a possible attack page and complete bollocks. However, the first revision [44], is just an article about a real, if non-notable, professor (he's listed here). Going on the creator [45] and editor's [46] edit histories, I suspect vandalism was the intention all along. Either way, there has never been any verification whatsoever, which doesn't cut it for a biography of a living person. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier comments. WMMartin 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otakukin[edit]

Otakukin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An original research soapbox article for a small self proclaimed demographic which has no reliable sources for verifiability or notability. NeoFreak 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to otherkin with brief mention there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What sourcable and verifiable information would you recommend merging into the article? NeoFreak 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a single sentence to the effect that "Otakukin are otherkin who believe themselves to have the spirits of fictional characters, rather than creatures." I'm pretty sure that's been said somewhere. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not from a reliable source. Even if it was there is still no notablity. NeoFreak 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this junk, and note places like [47] in the otherkin article. --humblefool® 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Silly attempt to justify a made-up word. MightyAtom 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No other comment. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. No point trying to merge it into otherkin: it used to be mentioned there, but was recently deleted due to the exact same concerns that led to this AfD. — Haeleth Talk 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuctionSHARK[edit]

del unreferenced promo. `'mikkanarxi 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Spammy. Just H 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damsel Nymph[edit]

Damsel Nymph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Article seems to present itself as being about a creature, but details information about sport fishing and how to use the insect as bait. Thoroughly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if it's about an insect or an ad for a trout lure. Fan-1967 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article cannot make up its mind whether to be a fishing guide or an article about the the damsel nymph. If the former, the delete because it is how-to. If the latter, then the material is already covered in Damselfly -- Whpq 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately, no one has suggested how it might be verifiable (Google is apparently out), and so it's a clear WP:V/WP:NOR case unless someone recreates it with good references (not to mention a good claim to notability). Sandstein 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game set[edit]

Game set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a term in a series of video games. Other than a mention in an unsourced section of a Wikipedia article and matching Wikipedia mirrors, a Google search finds no references to the term matching the usage discussed in the article (most of the 201 unique hits use "game set" as a synonym to Video game console) [48]. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. Allen3 ^talk 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a phrase. Not very significant, and hardly something worthy of an entire article. -- Whpq 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the game that allegedly uses the phrase, or alternatively delete as unverifiable. (I'm pretty sure there's a guideline somewhere that identifies single phrases about which there's nothing to say but "X is a phrase used in Y" as inappropriate article subjects, but I can't immediately remember where.) — Haeleth Talk 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with redirecting to the game is that other articles, Board game (chess or backgammon sets), Tennis score, or Video game console, are arguably better redirection locations. --Allen3 ^talk 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with that. I haven't heard of the term "game set" for "board game", and in tennis, you have "game, set and match", but not "game set". Stifle (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Easily verifiable. Note the difference between "verified" and "verifiable". Stifle (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq DGG 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey carver[edit]

Corey carver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a biography of a "backyard wrestler". There are no sources indicating his notability (other than his own web page, which doesn't count anyway). From contested prod: 62 Ghits for "Corey Carver"+wrestling (17 "unique") and initial results for Corz+wrestling are mostly submissions by Corz. ... discospinster _talk 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a wwrestling league he made up himself and appeares to currently be stagin in his schoolyard. -- Whpq 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DD_eleT_e Jumping off the roof of a garage onto a matress and a pudgy friend does not confer notability. Caknuck 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, backyard wrestling by underage amateurs = inherently NN. Probably qualifies for speedy A7, founding a NN teen wrestling fed isn't much of a notability assertion. Tubezone 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In answer to Whpq, this is a wrestling group corey got up from the group and built up himself. They used to hold shows in the schoolyard, however now they perform in a professional wrestling ring infront of crowds of over 100 people, quite a big name in North West British wrestling. Ad caknuck, Who said he jumps off a garage onto a mattrass? Tubezone, well, Amateur is incorrect, he has been professionally trained and is a professional himself. And if NN stands for No-Name, come up to the north west of England and ask them what RWL is. And underage? Incorrect, in England there is NO limits to become a wrestler unlike in USA/canada. Thank you.Indigoviolent 19:08, 4th December 2006 (GMT)

Delete - Give this article the Corey's signature "Gunn Slinger into cross-knee backbreaker" followed by his "Double Footed Stomp". This is a hoax of some sort. Even his own website doesn't make a case for notability. His manager, Spyke, is a cartoon character! Glendoremus 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indigoviolent is the creator of the page. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." DrKiernan 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Smash Bros. series NPSs[edit]

List of Super Smash Bros. series NPSs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article appears to be completely original research and is also completely unverifiable by reliable sources. I prodded it but the prod was removed by a new user who didn't give a very convincing reason why it shouldn't be deleted ("Well, it said on it that it shouldn't be replaced..."). Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game guide content, violates WP:V and NOR. Andre (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless game guide content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I love the game, the article is unsourced and is generally a walkthrough. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge with appropriate articles. The Super Smash Bros. article already has some of the information right now. This really doesn't violate WP:V- the names of the unplayable levels could be cited with a primary source (the game itself). Gameplay elements/plot don't need secondary sources. --- RockMFR 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they do. It's the way you can tell "There are three coins in world 3-7" from "Mario has blue overalls over a red shirt." They demonstrate importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no.... This is pretty established.... Unless every video game and movie featured article has gone against policy, I'd have to say that basic gameplay/plot just needs primary sources. --- RockMFR 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the validity of citing a game as a primary source is debatable, it's pretty much clear that citing an Action Replay code as a primary source is not acceptable. Andre (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that. However, it does raise up another question- how far can software be used as a primary reference? The information is there, just difficult to get to (in this case, hidden levels). In my opinion, it's no different than using a difficult-to-access written source (such as an out-of-print book/magazine/newspaper). --- RockMFR 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where an old text is not available in modern editions and not readily accessible via inter-library loans, then I would say that the primary source wouldn't be acceptable as a reference. For example, if I wanted to claim that a certain word was used on a certain page of a rare medieval manuscript, I could not reasonably cite that manuscript as a source -- I would need to cite some trustworthy work of scholarship that made the claim. Similarly, if it takes a gaming prodigy with superhuman reflexes to confirm a claim about a video game, then it would clearly be preferable to find a secondary source, such as a hintbook or a gaming magazine that has printed an article on secrets and tricks in the game in question, and cite that. The relevant policy is WP:NOR. — Haeleth Talk 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Levels that you can not legitimately get to need sources for them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game guide-like material that is of utter unimportance to the average reader. Hbdragon88 05:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Super Smash Bros. (series), else merge with their respective game. JQF 14:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Combination 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable in its current state. — Haeleth Talk 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Interesting concept, but not very well written and next to impossible to cite. -Ryanbomber 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is another one of those strength of argument debates. It's important that merely pointing at "notability," and claiming that is existent can't exactly merit an article. Even more so, it is crucial to understand that if something doesn't have any coverage but made by a notable company, it belongs on the companies page. Unless, something can bring forth reason for a separate article, there is nothing for this to merit it's own article. Yanksox 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhD (manhwa)[edit]

PhD (manhwa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable comics. Doond 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability. Hello32020 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep amazon has the PhD chronicles. will reference. possibly cleanup of main website as it is loads PhD site then redirects to a spyware site Mangecourt 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published by TokyoPop. Notability is inherent in that. FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. Tulkolahten 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not assert WP:Notability, notable publisher does not automatically confer notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- Chondrite 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally agree with Mangecourt and FrozenPurpleCube Doberdog 04:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing on amazon.com does not confer notability. Chondrite 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I googled "PhD: Phantasy Degree" and out of 42 Google pages and 419 wepages, I found the following listings.

The San Diego Public Library: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:AMH-LxRrO90J:www.sandiego.gov/public-library/pdf/newya0806.pdf+PhD+Phantasy+Degree&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=49

The Ossining Public Library (New York): http://www.ossininglibrary.org/teens/series.aspx.

Anime News Network: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=4900

Internet Book Database of Fiction: http://www.ibdof.com/IBDOF-book-detailedview.php?book_id=28909

School Library Journal: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6312459.html

Newsrama: http://www.newsarama.com/marketreport/apr06charts.html

The other sites are mostly online bookstores, personal blogs and manga/anime forums.

By the way, check out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Hunter . Just thought I'd let you guys know.

Doberdog 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is excellent research. What it seems to boil down to in regard to establishing notability:
according to Newsarama.com that PhD volume I is estimated to have sold 1000 copies in April 2006, placing it at #100 in the list of "APRIL 2006 Top 100 Trade Paperback orders (estimates) from Diamond".

It is included among School Library Journal's "Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers", but this is a trivial mention.

See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Hunter seems to have been based on google hits and notability of publisher, and that article should probably be renominated for deletion.

See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7 "Plot summaries." The article consists entirely of Original research. Excluding the original research and rewriting the article based only on verified published works would reduce the article to a stub.

--Chondrite 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: Thanks. With reagards to your comments:
I included the public school library listings to gauge how "Phd: Phantasy Degree" would fare against Wikipedia's threshold standards regarding availability in libraries {"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Threshold_standards ).

I think the problem of "Phd: Phantasy Degree" regarding plot summary has less to do with "original research", since the books themselves are the sources provided the author of the "Phd: Phantasy Degree" page included the ISBN number of said book. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources . Based on your comment, your argument would have been "Phd: Phantasy Degree" has no impact or historical significance to speak of to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

I included to the "Dragon Hunter" deletion page to show that Doond's metholodogy regarding criterias for non-notability (google hits) is dubious at best but I suppose you know that already. Of course, if there was a "Phd: Phantasy Degree" article or review out there in a legitimate / reputable webiste...particularly a manhwa / manga / comic book / Korean pop culture website...then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Doberdog 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Is it just me...or are we the only ones arguing about this?
Quite possibly. I suspect many of the pages about this manga would be in Korean, and the rest hard to find because there are a lot of ways to spell the title. I'm very comfortable relying on publication by Tokyopop in deciding to keep. They are the equivalent of a DC or a Marvel, any of whose titles or characters I'd be comfortable including without objection. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader unfamiliar with the subject, it is not clear to me whether the article is a straightforward description of the primary source (the work being described), or whether it includes original thought (interpretation/analysis). A reliable secondary source is preferable.

With respect to WP:NOT, my argument is that the article does not contain real-world context or sourced analysis, does not mention the work's achievments, does not attempt to describe the work's impact or historical significance, and is only a description of the work's plot and characters.

I disagree that any publisher automatically confers notability. Wikipedia is not a directory (e.g., of otherwise non-notable works that have been published by notable publishers). Each article must stand on it's own. "The primary criterion for notability, that applies in all fields, is that an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." See also: User:Uncle_G/On_notability.

--Chondrite 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly argree this article needs improvement, however, I can't understand a call for deletion. You may not consider the publisher a factor in notability, but when it comes to comic books and manga I do. Why? Because it's obvious to me that almost anything a Marvel, DC, or Tokyopop does is notable. Just like anything J. K. Rowling or Steven King writes is notable. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be missing the point of WP:Notability, particularly that "notabiity is not subjective." Works of very notable authors (such as the ones you mentioned) are almost guaranteed to receive independent coverage, and that coverage is what establishes notability. The only way to write a good encyclopedia article on any subject is to base that article on multiple independent sources. In this particular case, PhD (manhwa) is written from an in-universe perspective, and it will not be possible to rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective without reliance on third-party sources (that do not seem to exist). Chondrite 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that people write about something makes it notable is itself relying on a subjective judgement, so, no, I don't concur with your opinion since it seems inherently contradictory. You'd be much better off if you didn't try to make the argument that your reasoning wasn't subjective. Certainly not convincing in this case, where I'm saying notability comes through association (and you can't deny that people do write about Tokyopop or their other Manga). Now if you want to say "there should be some third party sources" well, that is itself a valid concern, though to me, I don't feel it is quite much of a problem. I believe it's important to look at the actual source first when it comes to things like the content of a book. The interpretation, impact, meaning, yes, that's third-party stuff (barring the rare director's commentary), but if you want to write about a book, you should be looking at the book. Or movie. Or TV series. This can be a fine line to walk, but hopefully you at least recognize the value of reading/viewing a given subject of an article. It's one thing to not expect people to come measure your shoe. It's another to not expect them to read a book. FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The verifiable fact that multiple, independent, third-party sources have written about a subject in a non-trival way is not subjective. Your argument does not seem to be that the subject of PhD (manhwa) is notable, but rather seems to be that it does not need to be notable. This argument does not address the reason given for AfD nomination, nor is it consistent with Wikipedia policy or guideline. My opinion is unchanged: the article does not assert the notability of the subject and should be deleted. -- Chondrite 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something is based off verifiable facts does not make the idea or even the perception of those sources as valuable in determining anything any less subjective. Even saying "This needs to be notable" is itself a subjective argument. This does not mean you don't have a good point, it means you are ruining it by trying to insist you're not being subjective when you clearly are. And you're wrong about my argument. I'm saying that I believe it is notable based on its publisher, and to overcome that you'd have to make an argument as to why it is not. You haven't done so. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a manga series like any other and so of course it deserves it's own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.232.129 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clear the article needs improvement but I don't see a problem with its lower visibility vs. other comics/manga. Lets say if we don't see some outside sources listed soon, maybe a few weeks... i will reconsider my view. MrMacMan 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of reliable third party coverage presented... --W.marsh 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Self-help. Actually, it was not all that clear what the result was, looks like AfD also doesn't know what to do with this. At any rate, it has many incoming links, but no reliable sources, and those wishing to keep the article haven't really addressed any pertinent points of policy. Under these circumstances, a redirect is probably the best (and most consensual) option, until the article is recreated with better sourcing. Sandstein 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal development[edit]

Personal development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had originally deleted this on expired prod, but there are more than 100 incoming links here and I felt uncomfortable about the prod rationale, which was "The only way to expand this might by copyvio of motivational self-help books." Frankly, I don't know what to do with it. This is procedural, I abstain. - crz crztalk 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cos' Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-help. LittleOldMe 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to self-help unless anyone can expand this. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It used to be unsourced material. That was removed, and now its nothing but four web links punctuated by sentences. --Vees 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Personal development is not the same as self-help because a person can also persue their self-development with professional assistance. Can someone restore the discussion page, please? The discussion about deletion was already taking place there.John Talbut 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain if this article can be expanded. Although "personal development" has been used interchangeably with self-help, both terms have different meanings depending on the context. In some contexts referring to personal development as self-help can be pejorative. --Comaze 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the discussion page and relist to give this 5 more days. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A totally appropriate site, acting as a disam page. The N and V are in the links, which is enough for this sort of composite, especially considering the incominglinks mentioned by Crz, DGG 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The amount of linkspam that comes in here is unreal, and as the field has little in the way of legitimate scholarship or peer view, adding reputable references would be well-nigh impossible. CRCulver 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personal development tends to be a new branch in psychology. It is different form self help. As I understand it, personal development is the aim and self-help is one of the means to obtain it.Dl.goe 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two users pronounced only on Talk:Personal_development#Proposed_deletion. I copy their oppinion here:

Against deletion The successful growth of category:personal development surely indicates the importance of this topic to Wikipedia. There must surely be enough information held in these articles to form a basis for a decent article on the subject. I have made a start by combining what seems to be the best of what was there before. --Vince 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion Personal Development is a real phenomenon and separate or distinct to varying extents from both the self-help movement and psychotherapy/counselling arenas. It could also be useful as the current category page also seems to be used as DMOZ-style ad page for the multiplicity of commercially-inspired PD "movements" and this page would help clarify what's what if written up well. It has been on my list to edit for some time "when getting round to it". MarkThomas 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per LittleOldMe et al.. WMMartin 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).~~ [reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge possible, but not really seeing a definitive consensus for that here. W.marsh 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidumper.org[edit]

Wikidumper.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable. Although mentioned by the Associated Press, the site doesn't have multiple non-trivial sources. Interiot 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Wow. Talk about irony. Anyway, the AP story linked to in the article is actually about another website. The Alexa page rank of 244,798 doesn't exactly impress either. I'm still kind of torn since I like the idea of a blog that keeps a record of deleted WP content. However, in the end it clearly doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. →Bobby← 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; As I see it, it's just a blog someone created earlier this month. Right now, it fails WP:WEB. One mention at the end of a newspaper article (often where less important details are placed) doesn't quite cut it, and as above, the Alexa rank is weak. Perhaps later this will meet the inclusion guidelines, but it doesn't now. Crystallina 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bloggish, and fails WP:WEB. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like an interesting idea. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clifford A. Pickover. Seems more proper to be there. Yanksox 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment From the AP article:

"Archive.org isn't the only site trying to save the ever-changing Web. Wikipedia.com, which constantly regurgitates itself with user-inputted data, is now being watched by wikidumper.blogsot.com.
"Any information not truthful enough to make it into Wikipedia is probably dubious twice over, but Wikidumper helps provide some oversight to the editors of Wikipedia, who can take down an entry for any number of reasons." Gretnagod 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Yanksox. hateless 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bobby and Crystallina. Sandstein 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even when I like the idea a lot (and already subscribe to their RSS feed). This is more of project space material, regrettably, likely not famous enough yet to warrant an article space article. I don't mind it if someone recreates it later when there's no question about this thing's notability, but I'm sceptical on whether or not it ever will get there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm definitely willing to change my view if this post's claims can be substantiated. Mentions press from different sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, the last thing we need is someone having a proof that we are biased against our critics Alf photoman 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia's numerous critics will find bias no matter what, because that critics do. We should be concerned with enforcing Wikipedia's consensus-built policies consistently, rather than with allowing external criticisms to dictate the actions of the community. IMO, this is a very weak arguement against deletion. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is "critical" about Wikidumper anyway? It's not like they have an agenda of "look at all these valid and well-sourced articles that they've unjustly deleted"; they publish just about everything that may be deleted later (ranging from blatant BJAODN material to little-known topics). I'd be a little bit hesitant to lump them among critical sites; at best they're doing a service to the community, at worst they're just making people say "look at that ridiculous stuff they published - but good thing it looks like they deleted it." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can it be said that WikiDumper is non-notable if it has 24,600 Google hits and 39 articles in Google news? Isn't this objective evidence that it is notable? November7 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get 15,700 google hits for "wikidumper", and three in google news. What are your search terms? Also, a google test alone is not enough to establish popularity for web content, much less notability (See Wikipedia:Search engine test). —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Google news, you do not get the full list unless you select "Sort by date." Sort by date gives you 39 hits for a wikidumper search. November7 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

39 hits, only three of which are unique. The rest are duplicates of the same story wire story. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently emerged as notable. Three more references by reliable sources, CNET USA Today Associated Press, added to article. Passes WP:WEB --Oakshade 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a passing mention in an AP article about a different site, republished by other news organisations (already discussed above) and a mention in a newspaper-run blog. I still think this is project space material at best... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Yanksox. If not Merge than Keep. It was inspired by Wikipedia in a way, and its purpose is not to boycott Wikipedia (at least not that I can tell). Seems notable enough. -WarthogDemon 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither inspiration by Wikipedia or a lack of ill-will towards Wikipedia is an arguement for notability. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, I should've clarified; I meant that thinking it was "ill will" was going to be why I said deletion. What's notabe about it is that it was inspired by Wikipedia in of itself, so it would deserve at the very least a merge to Clifford's page. -WarthogDemon 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, inspiration by Wikipedia is not a sign of notability. See WP:WEB. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should I change my vote then? >_> -WarthogDemon 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you, AfD's are more about discussion than vote counting. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AP is good enough, and it looks like extreme bias to delete a site that might reflec t critically upon our own decisions here. DGG 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clifford A. Pickover. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention in an AP article about another subject doesn't meet "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis added); the content of the site isn't relevant, it doesn't matter if it's critical of Wikipedia. Also, block the nominator for AfDing his article in the same edit as his creation of it, and for writing an edit counter that doesn't work because enwiki's not replicated, and for some reason isn't recognizing my opt-in for commons, even though I clearly did it here, and for changing the graphs (which I can't see for myself on Commons) from line graphs to solid graphs, which are ugly. --Rory096 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least we agree on the deletion reason. Phew, okay: Not sure what's wrong with the opt-in, but I've manually fixed yours. Enwiki replication isn't my doing, the toolserver admins (River/Kate and DaBpunkt) are at the controls on that one. And I've fixed the solid graphs just now. So does anybody else want to make feature requests while calling for a blocking? :) --Interiot 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but now I'd like to know - what is up with AfDing your own article in the same edit you created it? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious, but if it's really necessary to dissect the frog... I'm not the only one who recognized the irony in AfDing a site that rescues articles slated for deletion. [49] Nonetheless, this isn't a charade... I wrote the best article I could, it's truthful as far as I know, and my nomination is sincere. [50] While I didn't intend to take up so many people's time considering the AfD, what's done is done, not everybody agrees with me, and I think the AfD should be evaluated only on its merits since so many people have weighed in. --Interiot 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No personal offense meant, but this whole thing smacks of WP:POINT to me. The author even included "In an interesting twist of fate, this article has been marked for deletion form the Wikipedia." as his/her closing sentence in the original article. (I hope it's OK to comment here even if without a real account...) --75.108.178.227 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
November7 wrote that, [51] but November7 didn't author the Wikipedia article. Or are you saying User:November7 is the author of wikidumper.org (Clifford A. Pickover)? --Interiot 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is arguably WP:POINT, though I'm not sure what the point is. I for one don't appreciate it. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not making a point, nor is he disrupting Wikipedia, so how is he violating WP:POINT? Both the article creation and the AfD were good faith and valid, whether or not they were by the same person. I might add that Interiot is one of our most respected editors/toolserver users. --Rory096 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of Interiot's status, I have his code on my monobook page. However, I don't see how creating a page and immediately AfDing it can both be valid actions. If Interiot felt the article should not exist, he should not have created it, and if he felt it should, why would he list it for AfD? His comment about dissecting the frog implies he meant the process to be a joke. And wasting editor's time on an AfD, while not the most disruptive act possible, is nonetheless disruptive. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes alot of sense. This article is in very good Wiki-form. Having created several articles, I know the work that goes into it and nobody would go through all that trouble and then immediately send to AfD without having some agenda. --Oakshade 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swpb is right, in hindsight, it was a bad idea. I apologize for using up people's time on an AfD while misleading them.

That said, both the article and the AfD have been worked on by multiple other people, and have expanded quite a bit beyond my initial shady contributions. In order to not further waste the time they've consumed working on the article and AfD, hopefully the AfD can end as normally as possible. In addition, because it's the only thing I can undo at this point, I can strike my 'vote' if anyone asks (feel free to email me). Though, for what it's worth, my AfD reason was the more "valid"/more sincere of the two. --Interiot 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UShip[edit]

UShip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep - The main issue is notability and a google search for the term uship clearly establishes the notability of this company. better links have been placed in the article that establish the notability of this company. Article text can be fixed, but deletion is not necessary. Yes, I am biased because I wrote this article. But all this started after someone wrote the original text of the "criticisms" sections, which was described as a "waiver of liability" but is actually a negative point of view about the company, which is fine of course. Efalcao 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A google search on elements of this editor's username and the name of the company clearly establishes that this editor works for the company. WP:AFD suggests that users with conflict of interest should not participate in deletion discussions. MKoltnow 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is basically an advertisement for a company which fails to meet notability. MKoltnow 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. JChap2007 23:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article failed speedy delete (G11) on November 15, 2006. MKoltnow 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert - all of originator's contributions to Wikipedia are to this ad. B.Wind 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OFPEC[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable fansite. Fails WP:WEB, under 1000 Google hits. Andre (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no citations. --Ybbor ^T 21:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ybbor.--Kchase T 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Jungle Music[edit]

I've tried, believe me, but I've found no evidence that this is an actual, widely accepted genre of electronic music. It has no mentions on intelligent dance music or jungle music, Google turns up empty, and the articles listed are generally considered by sources to be something else. Crystallina 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's either a hoax or it's WP:OR; either way, it's an orphaned article that is as close to dead-end as could be. There were a total of 80 Google hits for "Intelligent jungle music," and none of the non-Wiki pages had anything stating what intelligent jungle music is. B.Wind 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Major U.S. Carriers and North American Carriers[edit]

6 Major U.S. Carriers and North American Carriers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is not notable. It is a list of airlines in North America, and other information collected from other wikipedia articles. It has no links from other pages on wikipedia (except redirects) —Cliffb 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pages that were moved into the original nomination:

6 major U.S. carriers

6 Major International Carriers

—Cliffb 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list is rather redundant, and could be handled by a category.-- danntm ^T _C 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to Belvedere College. Agent 86 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belvedere Sleepout[edit]

Belvedere Sleepout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Small, unremarkable charity event Curtains99 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Belvedere College. JChap2007 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important event in the college, and is a fairly well known event in Dublin. Deco16-10 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Belvedere College. Demiurge 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until after the present sleepout is finished, then decide, that's my suggestion. 83.70.69.182 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge seems called for. I have added the tags and concerned editors can do the merge. W.marsh 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Frigate[edit]

Missile Frigate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on TradeWars 2002; also merge the pages on the other ships used in this game. JChap2007 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.

Merge into TW2002, and then rebuild as a dab page for Aegis like frigates. (FFG/FGG/FG) 132.205.93.32 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~, Tulkolahten 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I reviewed parent page TradeWars 2002 and there are more pages about ships used in that game, it should be better to keep all of them as they are. Merging will lead to very long article. Tulkolahten 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this and other TradeWars 2002 ship articles to, perhaps, Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002)? Hircus 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tulkolahten Sharkface217 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this and others to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002), redirect Missile Frigate to Missile frigate, dab Missile frigate to refer to the Aegis class wessels and the TW2002 ship wow that was long Missle frigates are a major part of any navy and it is also a common name of stuff from games, so "Missile Frigate" is a very general term. In this case, we should dab it. Copysan 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:TradeWars_2002_ship_types into a single article. The main TW2002 article is too big to put them there but there's not enough to say about any one ship (most TW2002 ships are pretty generic) that they don't need individual articles. Redirect the title per Copysan above. BCoates 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think merging will destroy uniformity of the whole article. I would agree with moving to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002) per Copysan. Tulkolahten 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

corrected to link to category, not categorize this AfD. BCoates 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename since this game article shows up in Google when the searcher might want info on real world missile frigates. Edison 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab and Merge to a list of tradewars ships. No need for a separate article for each ship. -- Whpq 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Frigate should obviously be a redirect to Frigate. Whether it should be merged is another matter. Merge per BCoates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete There's no need for a separate article. Xiner 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio K Opened[edit]

Studio K Opened (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason MagnumXL200 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Delete-There's already a Studio K. Why would we need a Studio K Opened, exactly?[reply]

Essentially a duplication of Studio K. Delete as it wouldn't be a useful redirect. B.Wind 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per B.Wind.--Kchase T 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ellis Holley[edit]

John Ellis Holley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Google search for ("John Holley" HVAC) produces no information which corroborates the article, ("John E Holley" HVAC) produces no hits whatsoever. Either hoax or -very- non-notable inventor. Prod contested without explanation. (Also including John E Holley, redirect created when page was moved.) Seraphimblade 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written mess. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan article. Subject fails WP:BIO. B.Wind 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-paying bidder[edit]

Non-paying bidder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested proposed deletion. Original prod reason: Thinly-veiled advertisement for a commercial service (see last paragraph). Otherwise, nothing here that isn't already covered in eBay and related articles. – Gurch 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A shameless sales pitch right from day one, created by a single purpose account [52]. Entirely OR. Wikipedia is not an advertising service or webhost. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we can also do this for the prodded ReliaBid in a two-for-one spam sale. Can we speedy this spam? B.Wind 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious case of spam as an advert but cleverly put. Chanchino 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Hong Kong[edit]

Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Content of article is unencyclopedic and barely treats the topic. It is unclear to me whether there is any value in having a slew of articles Teaching English in Country X. (See Teaching English in Italy as an example of another article that has little or no encyclopedic value. It seems to me that, for the time being, our efforts should be focused on expanding Teaching English as a Foreign Language rather than having a slew of stubby little articles on Teaching English in Country X. Richard 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this just some person's attempt to make one of the themes in The King and I a full-blown article? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (if there's a compelling case to do so that I'm missing), merge to the larger article. There's nothing there currently to suggest that the Hong Kong experience is somehow different enough to be spun out from the main article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe the slew of TEFL articles was originally started by the authors of American TESOL Institute; however, the content of this one seems to have come from elsewhere. Still not encyclopedic. --Alvestrand 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching English in Italy closed as Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may be acceptable in a journal of education but not in an encyclopedia Alf photoman 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Miles (runner)[edit]

Brandon Miles (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn high school runner/webmaster Longhornsg 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't forget about that oversized image. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DrKiernan 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think you mean "per nom", though I don't see why. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree with your and the nominator's arguments for delete, and have edited my agreement to reflect that. DrKiernan 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warheads (confectionery)[edit]

Warheads (confectionery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. Non-notable by WP:CORP criteria. Bringing it here. D enni ^talk 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-established candy that has built significant name-recognition in the 30+ years since it was first introduced. Merging article with a (dare I say less-notable?) parent company that has owned the brand for less than two years would be counter-productive. -- Antepenultimate 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about the confectionery itself, not the parent company. The fact that the parent company is NN by WP:CORP is irrelevant to this AfD. If there's a problem with the parent company's notability, the AfD should be for Impact Confections instead. WP:CORP is only appropriate for corporations, not confectionery items. Mister Pe 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please read WP:CORP more carefully: there is also a section about products, so the nom is correct.

Comment: Since this article went to AfD, I have expanded upon it and cited two independent sources for my information. I believe it now adheres quite nicely to the notability guidelines set out by WP:CORP's Products & Services section. -- Antepenultimate 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right, and I think it fits the Products and Services section, point 2. Thanks to Antepenultimate, there are now references showing this as well. The rest of WP:CORP doesn't apply, though.Mister Pe 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Notable brand of confectionery. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though article needs clean-up - no need for a detailed list of all flavours and products. A link to the product website would be better and more frequently updated. WMMartin 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Former chair of the Independent Election Commission (1997), Secretary-General of the African Development Bank (1987-1988), author of Cry, Liberia, Cry. Died of heart failure, September 3, 1997. ^{See "Scorched Ether::Radio Broadcasting in the Liberian Civil War"} El_C 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Andrews[edit]

George Henry Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried several different Google queries but couldn't find one relevant hit that wasn't Wikipedia or some mirror. Someone on the talk page opined that the subject of this article may be made up. An overly chatty article with a "verify" tag that's been there for over a year. Thunderbunny 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Weak Delete I found a page that mentions him on Tripod [53], and he was a national cabinet minister, which makes him at least as notable as a member of a national legislature. But I couldn't find anything on him in reliable sources in a basic Google/Books/Scholar search and the article does not cite such sources. JChap2007 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search on "George Henry Andrews Liberia" turns up a few ghits. Most notably, there is a book "Cry, Liberia, Cry" by a G. Henry Andrews. I would give this article the benefit of the doubt. --Richard 02:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He was apparently a cabinet minister, which makes him notable in my book. But the article needs better references and a rewrite for style. WMMartin 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sweet[edit]

Adam Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be a vanity page mostly contributed by the subject Dontdoit 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G11 (come to the X cafe...); utterly non-notable. JChap2007 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article: My teaching specialties include... Speedy delete. B.Wind 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta speed, keed! Danny Lilithborne 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a vanity page...more of a bio page
sorry you think the 250 or so students I've taught over the last 16 years made a mistake in hiring me as their fiddle teacher. Oops, two of them have gone on to record cd's, one joined a touring symphony orchestra, four of them are Moms of great kids now...but I guess that's not important to the world —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centurymusician (talk • contribs).

Speedy delete per CSD:G11. Centurymusician, no one is saying you are a bad teacher, or a bad person. It's just that we think the article fails a few guidelines articles have to conform to. If you've taught people who've gone on to record CDs, joining orchestras or moms with freat kids, that's fantastic, but it doesn't mean there should be an article about you on Wikipedia. You should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, the article you've written does read like an ad. --Lijnema 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:G11. It's entirely an ad! look at the last paragraph. --Charlesknight 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudome[edit]

Pseudome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While biology uses many words in -ome, this one does not seem widespread, to say the least: almost no google hit and (more relevant) no hits at all on Pubmed. The only page I have found on the web is on a Wiki and ~~everyone knows that these things can not be trusted~~ it links to a non-existing "project". Delete Schutz 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gnusmas 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nopnm. , and --as a biologist--this seems like undocumented local lab slang at the most.DGG 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are no reliable sources. In fact, there are no sources at all. Please feel free to re-create an article that has actual sources. What we have now is an advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword[edit]

E-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable software product, makes no attempt to pass WP:SOFTWARE. Demiurge 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a previous AfD from 2004 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword; the result was "delete" but there's no corresponding entry in the deletion log so I'm resubmitting it rather than speedying it. Demiurge 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am one of 4,000,000 users of e-sword and I find it to be a very helpful program with no computer viruses. People pay money for software like this and Rick Meyers (the software author) gives it away for free -- no strings attached. How can a FREE program with 4 million users not be notable? User: openheaven November 24, 2006

Reply: Likewise. I probably don't hold the same beliefs as Rick Meyers, but he has done an excellent job on this piece of software. It's worth keeping this article on Wikipedia. I don't understand the wish of Demiurge to delete this article. There's no real argument in the request. Is there some other agenda? --MaxHund 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I can agree that in 2004 this program may not have been noteworthy enough to merit an article here, however I do not believe that is still the case. In the past two years E-sword has escalated in functionality and popularity to the point that it is now relatively uncontested as the most useful free offline Bible study resource for the PC. I found this article to be very informative, and it directed me toward several resources that quite improved the functionality of my copy of E-sword. I think an E-sword page here on wikipedia is every bit as relevant as pages about some old videogames such as Shadowcaster, or Mind_Walker. I think at the very least this program is not unimportant enough to merit deletion. Opusfalse 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relates to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sword_Project (also brought by Demiurge. LOTS of google hits for this one, including multiple independent reviews (mostly in niche publications). --Karnesky 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have found e-Sword to be a useful program, and came to Wikipedia for an article which I hoped would tell me about possible alternatives/competitors, and maybe for some views of the quality of some of the modules. The article could be improved, particularly in this first point, but was surprised at the notion that the page might be deleted. Please keep it. Michael
I haven't looked into the number of reviews of e-sword, but I would be extremely surprised if it did not clearly meet the guidelines for notability, as it has a well established group of users - the 4 million quoted above is just the start. For example, I have installed it on all of my family's computers, and several of my friends'. If it was only downloaded once (by me), and as there is no way to register or anything, who's counted all of them? Alister

Keep - E-Sword is notable as an extremely flexible and open framework for studying and comparing Bibles, concordances, and many other types of reference materials. It is rather unique in that it plays very well with many different file formats. Perhaps this could be brought out in the article more, but without making it sound like advertising copy. As User:openheaven pointed out, there have been over 4,000,000 downloads. --Willscrlt 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KarneskyDGG 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brookfield (geneticist)[edit]

John Brookfield (geneticist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Linkless article on a college professor. Does not satisfy WP:BIO - there is no evidence that it is more noteworthy than an average university professor. He has some publications (as do most college professors), but nothing indicates that these are particularly noteworthy. Dsreyn 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN academic, and the page is a near-copy of the subject's page at his university, here. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable research scientist with 55 publications at PubMed link. Full professor at one of the top UK universities. Way more noteworthy than the average college teacher. Edison 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm taking WP:PROF as the standard of notability, and I don't see any evidence in the article (or in a fast websearch) that the subject meets any of those criteria. But of course PROF isn't policy. Edison: are you using a different standard of notability, or do you think Brookfield meets a PROF criterion? Cheers, Sam Clark 14:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I just posted an FYI at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Announcements where there may be folks that are versed on this topic. If this is not an appropriate action of mine, please just kindly advise. Thanks! --Keesiewonder 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Being in that project myself, he is by far notable enough. Number of publication , combined with Professor rank at a university is enough. (Number depends on field, but I can think of no field in bio where 25 or so would not be enough, and he has twice that.) There seems to be a certain bias against academics if AfDs are placed even if they have status as high as this. The current WP:PROF discussions do not have the least consensus, and are simply not an accepted criterion in WP, especially in science. But I highly commend the approach taken here of asking WP people in the subject if they want to comment. DGG 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The number of publications you say he has may be valid, but his notability needs to be established in the article. As it now stands, I don't really see how the article makes the case. It's not incumbent on those unfamiliar with the subject to do web searches to determine his notability. Dsreyn 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet the criteria proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Yes, he has made contributions but they are not of lasting and profound importance. DrKiernan 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. I'm glad my effort may have helped and was probably appropriate. Elsewhere, I've (almost) been warned about WP:NOVOTE when I've mentioned this tactic. So, that is something to consider as well. Keesiewonder 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Edison and DGG. Keesiewonder 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once a month cooking[edit]

Once a month cooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody's trivial freetime activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OAMC (talk • contribs). — OAMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: The AfD was added by a new user 5 minutes after account creation with account name that matches article acronym. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this. I made up large batches of a dietetic stew. Stored portions in zip lock bags and froze them. It was very convenient. Haven't done again in soome time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willhaney (talk • contribs). — Willhaney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. By the looks of the sources, it's a lot of people's "trivial freetime activity." Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I first heard of this around 20 years ago, and still hear of it quite often. It's very common, and therefore worth noting. Should be expanded, of course, and is sometimes called "Freezer Cooking" --Pwinn 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming it survives AfD, this article should probably be moved to Freezer cooking. -- Alan McBeth 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate cooking activity and practised by many people. Jamie Oliver referred to it in an episode of The Naked Chef and other UK cookery programmes refer to this activity also. The article could do with some more sources and perhaps be moved to a clearer name but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. (aeropagitica) 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you mad? --Dennisthe2 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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