Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 16

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< August 15 August 17 >

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 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernovela

edit

Protologism, unreferenced, author of this article has stated elsewhere that this is a genre that does not yet exist [1] earlier version of this article was part of an advertising campaign for a forthcoming production with claims that it would be "the first of this genre". Note that the first version of this article [2] heavily promotes this production. Although the "first cybernovela", which the author seems to have some interest in promoting, has not been released, they have written about the characteristics of cybernovelas (plural) in general: I'm not sure how this is possible. Suggest speedy delete on the grounds of lack of notability. -- The Anome 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by The Anome. ViridaeTalk 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linalf Galf MBE

edit

This article seems to be some sort of poorly thought out joke. This apparently made up character supposedly attended "Lord Snobbington Preparatory Institute" and he was top of his class is "woodworking and cookery". A google search for Linalf Galf yields nothing. The more I read the article, it is definitely a candidate for speedy deletion, but oh well. I guess we are supposed to give editors the benefit of the doubt, despite their previous contributions. Fopkins | Talk 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Dwarf (Warhammer) following the merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trollslayer

edit

Does not look to be important for an encyclopedia and has not had a clean-up or improvement of the text since it was created in January 2006. If deletion does not meet the consensus, than I suggest the article be shortened in able to simplify what is called a "Trollslayer" (i.e. the book named after the word or whatever). ~ clearthought 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EAcceleration

edit

Seems like advert-spam for non-notable product. Mattisse(talk) 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the attack part has been restored to the article, claiming that EAcceleration is a ripoff. Isn't that what Davidnason was complaining about as an attack page above? Mattisse(talk) 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casual communications

edit

At least a partial copyvio from the provided external link. Beyond that, it's just a (fairly useless) dictdef. Staecker 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a simple re-creation of content deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis-showing game. There's no reason that Wikipedia cannot have an anthropological article on an aspect of human behaviour, per Billy Blythe below. But neither this, nor the prior article, are anything like that at all, or even the start of such an article. Editors wanting a "smerge" should note that this is already mentioned in Waiting.... Uncle G 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The penis showing game

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robots 2

edit

Previously deleted in 2005 - (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots 2), now recreated. There is nothing on the Net that I can find that says that this movie, scheduled for 2010, exists. imdb never heard of it, all of the Google hits are from immediately following the release of Robots saying that the creators are talking about a sequel. The character names and the actors are all made up out of whole cloth. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The At Last World Tour

edit

Appears to be a list of Cyndi Lauper tour locations (but no context of that is given). Doesn't appear to be notable. Crumbsucker 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EagleBlood

edit

NN artist, fails under WP:MUSIC. Also, the artist left a message on my talk page saying that someone else wrote the article and she tried to blank it to delete it- she also believes she doesn't merit an article. I'm not sure if this holds any weight or not. --Wafulz 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Note that merge and delete are not really compatible, because the GFDL requires we maintain a version history. Mangojuicetalk 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raglan Musicians Club

edit

Hate to dob in a NZ article, but this one really is nn. The band mentioned are moderately notable, but, well, this is hardly The Cavern. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of dictators. I know some of you wanting merge also wanted deletion, but the GFDL creates an issue with that, and this makes a fine redirect. Mangojuicetalk 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators currently in power

edit

Fails to add any value to parent "List of dictators"; created simply to push POV of one editor

  • Keep Any listing like this one will always have some PoV issues but most current political articles have the same problem. Knowledge in this field is never absolute nor is it ever absent of bias. To exclude such information from Wikipedia is to limit it unnecessarily. I find the listing useful even if controversial. Let a thousand flowers of debate bloom. Ggads 11:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the POV issue (no annotations as in the parent, etc), this creates a synchronization problem that is unnecessary. A small change to List of dictators highlighted the rulers "currently in power", satisfying the only organization convenience this list might have had. LotLE×talk 01:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fully valid, as discussed in the AfD's for List of Dictators, and this list is very useful, separating all of the outdated rulers from the ones in power today. Anyone interested in international relations should value this list. AdamBiswanger1 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also want the map to stay somewhere, either list of dictators or list of dictators currently in power.--Antispammer 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep no more POV than List of dictators, and the map does seem useful (if anything, underpopulated, but that's another matter). Opabinia regalis 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The map is useful only for circumventing Wikipedia's NPOV policy by ignoring the intense controversy surrounding the labelling of these countries as "dictatorships". Furthermore, you cannot justify the retention of this article by comparing it to an article that most people thought should be deleted. -- WGee 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpacho 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with your assertion that one bad entery should get a list deleted. Woudn't removing the particular entery make more sense. That appears to be shakey grounds to delete the entire article. Also checking the article shows that he is no longer listed making that point moot. --Edgelord 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Lulu. List of dictators provides for (albeit meagre) counter balance and explanation (though no serious analysis or references to such studies I note). This list fails even to do that. A small change to List of dictators highlighting the leaders "currently in power" should suffice. And Raúl? --Zleitzen 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copied and pasted the explanations to this article, so I believe any remaining opposition is geared towards List of Dictators, not this article. AdamBiswanger1 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I was one of the keep voters on the AfD for "List of dictators", and one of the main editors who shaped up the criteria and annotations there. So I think the general list is OK, albeit requiring active monitoring to prevent POV-creep. I simply don't see any advantage to this "digest" of the larger list, since the highlights I added to the larger list make reading the "currently in power" feature quite easy (I used boldface for years "-present"; but some other convention would be fine). LotLE×talk 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge new info with List of dictators. 24.126.199.129 08:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just add something on the main list that differentiates current from past. Konman72 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — And mark those in power with a small note at List of dictators Martinp23 10:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a better and more interesting list than List of dictators. Dictators currently in power is a notable list in itself and deserving of a wikipedia article. If there are disputes over whether a particular person in power is a dictator, that can be dealt with as part of the article rather than by deleting the entire article. Merging would diminish this as not only would a notable list be removed but it would be much harder to pick out the current dictators in the larger list. MLA 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further the list of dictators is currently under-populated, I'll try and find time to add some of the many dictators not currently covered (starting with Jerry Rawlings) but that leads me to another reason for keep in that the list of current dictators could do with being a separate list and the existing article is already a very long list despite being incomplete. MLA 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of dictators, as demonstrated by its title, is all-inclusive; it is not limited to past dictators. Thus, all dictators, both past and present, should be discussed in that article. If you are worried about organization, perhaps a new section could be created in the original list, but, since the dictators in the list are chronologically organized, with the currently ruling dictators emphasized, I find it difficult to believe that a merger/deletion would create any confusion. -- WGee 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple to the under-populated List of dictators and it raised an interesting example to me in the form of Olusegun Obasanjo who is a former dictator but is currently in power. This is interesting and encyclopedic and it something that the article under discussion here could cover where the List of dictators would struggle to. MLA 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That marking has already been added, thereby making the fork article of no additional organization worth. LotLE×talk 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the marking before. In that case, I change my position to Delete.--Húsönd 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are there any? KleenupKrew 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is inherently biased. In order for neutrality to exist, we must discuss the controversy surrounding the allegations, including opposing viewpoints; however, this is impossible to do in a list entitled "List of dictators", as the title necessarily and erroneously implies that every leader within it is incontrovertibly a dictator. Let the leaders' policies and actions, which are outlined in their respective articles, serve as a neutral indication of their alleged dictatorial nature; do not try to make unconditional assertions based on the idiosyncratic inferences of editors (i.e., original research). In addition, reigning dictators are already discussed in the List of dictators, thereby making this article superfluous and a POV fork. If organization or "usefulness" is your concern, create a separate section in the original article, at the most; do not create a separate article to surreptitiously promote a POV. Thus, since it is impossible to objectively and incontrovertibly categorize a group of leaders as "dictators", and because this article is a POV fork, List of dictators currently in power should be deleted. -- WGee 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too POV to fix. Ditto List of Dictators, as and when someone puts that up. Hornplease 05:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's second edit to Wikipedia was this vote.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinchpoop

edit

Non-notable slang. RobJ1981 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how old most of us are, but I'm 13 and not a vandal who makes (literal) shit jokes, so... 1ne 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are being constantly made up, but when a page like this comes up, it violates WP:NEO. 1ne 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mr/Ms. 70.119.152.72, if you think it should be in Wiktionary what is stopping you putting it in there? Doesn't belong here. End of story--Greasysteve13 05:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAJAM

edit

Vanispamcruftisement Xrblsnggt 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Macintosh Finder. Despite what Arsians think, WP:V isn't suspended because it came from the Ars forums. There were valid criticisms, and they were merged into the Finder article. I also placed a listing on List of Internet slang terms. I only stepped in because I saw it listed on Ars' mainpage. That says a lot.  RasputinAXP  13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FTFF

edit
  • Definition of a message board term catchphrase that is not widely used (948 Google hits, mostly blog posts and duplicates). The useful content could be moved to a Criticism section of Macintosh Finder. Dtcdthingy 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: It is absurd to think that an article on 'FTFF' provides any advancement in knowledge. Nobody is really interested in what 'FTFF' is in itself, rather the criticisms which should be in the Macintosh Finder article. Danrees 08:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The FTFF phenomena is significant, but not significant enough to warrent its own article. The article should be merged into the Finder article under criticisms. Kethinov 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get 10,100 hits for the query cited as having "948 Google hits" above. I also get 40,800 hits in Google for "FTFF". (Some are unrelated, but not 39,852 of them.) "FTFF Apple" has 10,800 hits. "FTFF Mac" has 11,300 hits. -- John Siracusa 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful and redirect. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: Wikipedia serves as a valuable tool for looking up unfamiliar acronyms and phrases, to learn what they refer to. FTFF serves as a unifying mantra for a large number of Mac users, some of whom have a great deal of influence in the Mac technical community, and the rallying cry has taken on a life of its own, beyond mere "finder criticism", a term which doesn't begin to capture the emotion evoked by "FTFF". It is something of an umbrella term, encompassing many areas of concern with the current finder, and so the article could stand to be expanded and clarified. But there's no reason to remove it altogether --jacobolus (t) 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Jacobolus has made 3623 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What you are looking for, for looking up the meanings of words and phrases, is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The dictionary is over there. Uncle G 09:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it does. FTFF perhaps deserves an entry at Wiktionary giving the definition alone, but it should be pretty blatantly obvious that there's more to FTFF than just a definition. It is thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep per User:jacobolus and User:Horbal. [email protected] 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. Again: The tool for looking up the meanings of words and phrases is a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Our articles are about people, places, concepts, events, and things. Encyclopaedic content about the Macintosh Finder, including a discussion of user requests for its improvement, belongs in Macintosh Finder (broken out in Wikipedia:Summary style into a sub-article if it becomes too long). Having such encyclopaedic content under this title is as absurd as having the encyclopaedia article about Muhammad Ali under the title I am the greatest. Please see our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Uncle G 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • FTFF is not just a phrase, it is also a concept. It represents the idea that a large group of users of a particular product who have a common criticism of it can coin a phrase/acronym that espouses said criticism in the hopes that their request - however rudely put - will be heard. FTFF is damn near a movement in parts of the Mac community, and is separated from being purely a simplistic word or phrase by this fact (not to mention it is a cry that has remained apparently unheard by Apple for years now, but one day will be addressed, and as such will make up an interesting aspect of the development of the Mac OS X operating system, and maybe the FTFF page will end up with a happy ending). Silic0n 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you misunderstand me. There is always some overlap between defining a term and explaining it. But a dictionary is unlikely to provide the information I'm looking for when I search for "FTFF". FTFF is a term understood by most members of the Macintosh technical community. It explains a common sentiment among a large cross section of that community, and has become more than mere criticism of a product. As others have said, FTFF is something more of a subculture than anything, and is well-enough known to be notable. This is distinct from mere Finder criticism, and merging it with that page would prevent further explanation of the term. --jacobolus (t) 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — definition to List of Internet slang phrases Martinp23 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not used often enough even for a merge to the internet slang phrases article. Merge to Macintosh Finder. Recury 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Recury has made 3081 edits since December 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is going to be kept retained, it will need to add verifiable sources. This page has some good guidelines on what Wikipedia considers reliable. If none are available, then we have to delete. Recury 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's a "verifiable source" for something like this? Is the argument really that it doesn't exist or was made up for the benefit of Wikipedia? I don't understand this objection. As far as I know, there is no contested information in the entry. John Siracusa 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The contested information would be the coinage claims and the claims that this is a big deal among Mac users along with their specific complaints. Read the links I posted for more info on what kind of sources to use, especially the part about using forum posts as sources. They do a better job of explaining all this than I would. Recury 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A source would be a previously published journal article, book, magazine feature article, or suchlike, that discusses user suggestions to improve the Macintosh Finder in depth, and that is written by someone wholly independent of those users. If indeed "Wikipedia [...] is the [...] only [...] place to get a concise explanation of the term.", as stated on the discussion forum linked to above, then this article violates our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is not here for the purpose of documenting things that are not documented anywhere else. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The primary source is a web forum. It just is; I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into Wikipedia's rules about sources. The secondary sources also include a lot of web forums and blogs. Most are not "wholly independent of those users" because that's the nature of blogs and forums--people expressing their opinions directly. The existence of these sources is quite easily demonstrated with a quick web search. I don't see the point in linking each one to somehow "prove" that FTFF exists as a notable term in the Mac community. In fact, I don't see this information even being challenged. Instead, I see a series of "procedural" arguments. If someone really thinks this entry should be removed because FTFF doesn't exist or is not actually a grassroots, three-year-old, organic movement, then say so plainly, and be prepared to support your contention. All existing evidence and testimony from those in the Mac community, however "inadequate" it may be according to Wikipedia's guidelines for sources, says otherwise. -- Siracusa 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • An encycplopaedia is a catalog of articles dealing with a wide range of human knowledge. Obviously defintions belong in a dictionary, but FTFF is a statement that defines a group (or perhaps a sub-group). As any Sociology dictionary will tell you, a subgroup is often defined by shared opinions and shared slang. FTFF is a page describing the slang that defines a subgroup. The Primary Source that you desire is the group itself, which exists on an internet board. Ethanjohn 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Opabinia regalis. —dima /sb.tk/ 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never seen this before. If you want to look stuff like that go to urban dictionary. Dev920 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Lauren 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: This may not appear in a generic "jargon file" or "urban dictionary" because it's so specific to a particular subculture. Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information. As an individual page and search result, it's succinct and to the point. I often google for "wikipedia mysearchterm" these days because the wikipedia page is usually the most concise and straightforward information source. If I had to wade through an already large "Finder" page scanning for occurrences of "FTFF," it'd be a less efficient and less pleasant experience. Retain and cross-link, not merge. This is the web, not real estate. There's little cost to a separate page, and many benefits. —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: "FTFF" is more than an acronym or mere neologism, it encompasses and accurately identifies a particular sub-cultural movement. It might even be considered a sort of rallying cry or pass-mot among Macintosh users. Furthrmore, this entry is clearly more detailed than a dictionary definition and well-written to boot. Keep it. Horbal 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make it clear. This is not a definition and I don't see anything in the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" link cited by Uncle G above that renders this article objectionable. If Where's the beef?, d'oh!, All your base are belong to us and Beam me up, Scotty can have entries, then so should FTFF. The difference is only a matter of degree. But if Wikipedia's goal is comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, this is no reason to eliminate a perfectly valid entry, simply because it may be relatively obscure. As Siracusa said, this is the web, not real estate. Horbal 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Horbal has made 16 edits since October 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ^^ Ironically, most of the reason for my infrequent attempts to contribute is that I hate wasting my time contributing to something only to have self-appointed wiki-police (obviously with more time on their hands) shout it down. Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Funny, personally, I contributed to a lot of stuff before anyone ever tried to "shout me down", and I think most of these so far have been resolved quite peacefully. I've noted you get nowhere in Wikipedia unless you're always prepared to seek compromises. =) Anyway, I was not trying to shout you down. People with less contributions can, and are encouraged to, leave comments; However, what comes to the retainment/delete headcount, their voices on that matter get less voice. Consider that marker there a "this had better be a good excuse" marker. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also contributed to a lot of stuff before running into a contentious entry (which is when I registered and quickly soured on the experience). Regardless, the notion that edit counts somehow lend more credence to a user's opinion is flawed, at best. Arguments should be considered on their merits, not based on that user's past contributions to other threads. For all I know from seeing the edit counts you're posting on this page, the bulk of your 3000 edits are about your friend's indie rock band. Meanwhile, you're discounting the opinions of people who are essentially experts on this particular topic, simply because they weren't motivated to contribute before. If those opinions are based on a flawed understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, that's one thing. But where they raise a valid question or objection, you should have a better argument in rebuttal than "you're new around here". Horbal 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If foo, bar, and baz have articles, then so should this" is an old argument that just doesn't fly. We're discussing notability of this article. Feel free to nominate any of those for deletion if you feel they are worthless. But in those cases, their notability can be established easily. Can it, in this case? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the "notability" of this term is well-established. It is practically a term of art in the Mac world. It has existed for over three years. It is well-known and often used, and debated among Mac users across the entire net. As for arguing that this entry should stay because other, similar entries exist and are not contested, that's at least a stronger argument than attempting to diminish the comments of others by "rating" them based on the number of comments they've made to Wikipedia, which wwwwolf has done throughout this page. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I don't think any of those articles are worthless! I'm merely pointing them out as analogues to this one. They explain an idiom to the uninitiated, much like this entry does. Quite frankly, I don't see the difference, other than degree of popularity and, again, I never realized Wikipedia was a popularity contest. What's the point of that? Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot. Silic0n 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - per jacobolus. joshbuddy, talk 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Retain - it is useful if a Wikipedia search for a term at least points to the definition expected, especially for technical terms Bombcar 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - The entry is succinct and informative. It is a useful reference to which Mac users (new and old) can be referred to learn about criticisms of the current Macintosh Finder, and itself refers to further reading. Ravi Pokala 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain -- FTFF is immediately recognizable even to those, like me, who are not Power Mac users. I am just a Mac guy, and I have known what this term has meant for years. -- Unsigned comment by User:69.180.180.174
  • In the edit history for this page, there appears to be some conflict over John being "the most well-known user of this term." Also in the history, John claims "I've used the term exactly once that I can recall (in my Tiger review), and only in reference to its use by others." I see no proof that John is "the most well-known user" of FTFF and frankly find the banner spanning the top of this page to be 1) intellectually offensive, and 2) a dishonest attempt to sway discussion. While it could be argued that John's post to ArsTechnica is an equally dishonest attempt to sway discussion, two wrongs do not make a right. [email protected] 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - This needs to stay because until the Finder is improved, OSX will not be truly complete, and Apple has been lazy, it's symbolic of continued pressure on them to fix it. col_kurtz
  • Retain or Merge - It's a succinct explanation of technical jargon, condensing years of back-and-forth discussion into a few paragraphs. The term is frequently used, and having it available as a separate article is likely useful. It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation. If you must pull it into the Macintosh entry, that would be acceptable, but perhaps suboptimal. It's of high interest to a subset of people looking up information about the Macintosh, but not all of them. Added in a second edit: wwwwolf is playing games by 'rating' users based on their number of contributions, and mostly for people he disagrees with. Argue on merits, not on users. Malor
    • User Malor has made 5 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's not playing games. That is how the AFD process works, established users' opinions are given more weight because they are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. The opinions of users who came here because of a forum post to vote are given much less weight. Recury 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation. — Then please cite sources, where this "technical jargon" and the "movement" that it represents have been documented in detail by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia and independent of the proponents of the "movement", to demonstrate that this is not original research. The article cites no sources at all, currently. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourced criticism on Finder and comments on users' frustration might be welcome in Macintosh Finder article. As the article stands now, it looks, sounds, and smells like a political/activisim tool to pressure Apple, which is echoed in above comments too ("Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information", "FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot"). Which is useless, of course, I'm sure Apple can't be pressured just with a random Wikipedia article and blog/message board comments that are harshly critical to them. =/ We should therefore consider this in relation to some other political/activist slogans. This isn't quite up there in historical significance with "read my lips..." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Wwwwolf has made 3248 edits since May 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entry is explanatory and informative. It is not advocacy. The visibility that I cited aids people who want to know what it means and learn the history behind it. Like any topic where there are strong feelings, there will be those who want to use the entry for advocacy. That can be (and has been) handled as usual, with edits to entry itself that maintain its neutrality. The potential for conflict in no way disqualifies the topic as a valid Wikipedia page. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wwwwolf; protologism and astroturfing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia describes "astroturfing" as "formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior." FTFF had entirely informal origins. The proliferation off FTFF was not caused by one person or an organized cabal. It was hard to even track down the person who originally coined the term. FTFF did not even appear in a "formal" article on the site whose forums spawned it until over two years after it was coined. It is an actual grassroots phenomenon, not something posing as one. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain This is, indeed, a well known criticism of Mac OS X. It would be a shame to see it deleted from the Wiki. -- User:87.3.203.66
  • Keep It's apple sub-culture, but it's absolutely out there and it's a valid criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G3pro (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain: Is Wikipedia a repository of knowledge or not? If terms such as FTFF don't belong in an encyclopedia, could someone explain why phrases like All your base are belong to us (A.K.A AYBABTU) are still here? The fact is that there are countless useful terms that originated in message boards which can be readily found in Wikipedia. Why is this one in particular not appropriate? Is it because some of you were not familiar with it? If that's the case, all the more reason to retain it :-) GhostInTheShell
  • I added edit counts for the rest of the people who participated in discussion since some people assumed I was adding those in bad faith. I didn't add them to some, mostly because the edit counter kept jamming. I might, later. The AfD will run for a while and this is a matter that'll probably be of interest to the closing admin. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: This is an important "school" of thought and debate amongst Mac users. The FTFF meme is a recurring and broad opinion held by many high-profile Internet commentators on the Mac. Yes, it's an acronym common on many Mac-centric message boards, but its usage goes far beyond that. Kirkland 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Finder article per Opabinia regalis. Debuskjt 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Finder and Internet slang phrases. I do recall "Fuck the fucking fuckers" used in movies, and so that meaning should be preserved in Internet slang phrases, separate from "Fix the Fucking Finder". Sertrel 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - As a stand alone article it mistakes Wikipedia for a dictionary, and has no greater cultural context outside the context of a discussion of the perceived faults some see in the Macintosh Finder (contrast with widespread memes like All You Base, or Where's the Beef). Perhaps if we start seeing FTFF spray-painted on walls or bandied about by politicians to score points against rivals this will change, but until then it merits no more than a mention in the Finder page, if that. Senjutsu 22:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: This concept is as encycalpedaic as many other ones that are maintained in Wikipedia. I don't see how it's particularly less worthy from being a movement among Mac users than many of the social or political concepts that Wikipedia has entries on, no matter how obscure. Kd5mdk 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain or Merge per jacobolus. Retain is preferrable, as this article is the first Google hit for the term. MrVacBob 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gut and rewrite. This article has a long way to go, and needs to be stripped of all POV content - which is, unfortunately, the vast majority of it. However, as a neologism, it's a very common one in the arstechnica community, and has received sufficient recognition outside of it to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 05:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: While a widely held criticism of OS X, and one that I am personally familiar with, the topic itself is too narrow to merit its own article. If OS X or its various sub-articles on the separate versions of OS X have 'criticism' sections (and the sub-articles do) - this belongs there. I recommend including this information in the Mac OS X v.10.0 article, as the original problem dates from the initial release of OS X and pervades to this day.

EDIT: after looking at the Finder page, the criticism addressed in this article belongs there.Fedallah 05:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE For all those decrying why wwwolf is posting edit counts may have missed this Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I can respect the feelings that some of these anons have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site or term has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so you understand. The Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a stand-alone basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s). It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, some sections of WP:OR, does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. The biggest violation beyond not citing reliable sources, is neologism. The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate and The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. Following this, Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.. So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. More over Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. So when the time comes that this term does have citations that rely on books and papers that have articles/sections about the term, then the article can be recreate. As far as personal thoughts, An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner. I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FTFF is not original research. It was in use for a significant period of time before this Wikipedia article existed. There are a large number of blogs and other sources which reference the term. You may say that these are not reliable, but this is a silly argument; different areas of human thought are discussed different fora: many scientific terms are not discussed by major international newspapers, but are nonetheless notable, because they are used in scientific publications. Recently, a Pokemon character was Wikipedia's featured article. This one minor character almost assuredly has no books or papers written about it, or major news outlets explaining its various statistics; Wikipedia's article itself is the most complete and comprehensive source about the subject, synthesizing information from many other sources. All of which is to say, Wiki is not Paper. If this article is useful to Wikipedians, and helps them to understand a term and a movement in the Macintosh technical community, then the article should stay. --jacobolus (t) 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the Bulbasaur article is a large synthesis of information, it does not put forward any position about the Pokemon, and all of the facts presented are thoroughly documented with citations from the anime, major magazines, gaming guides, well-known gaming websites, books, comics, etc. The two are not comparable. That page features over 33 separate, verifiable references. What information in the FTFF article is verifiable fact? The part with the subjective list of gripes or the part that speculates about Apple's future plans for the Finder? Debuskjt 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You completely miss my point, which is not that Bulbosaur doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. Rather, its sources are things like the "pokemon yellow walkthrough", some random fansite which explains to newbies how to play the pokemon games. This type of Pokemon information cannot be learned from Newsweek, The New York Times, or Science, because those publications are not in the business of providing guides to pokemon video game players. Instead, the information comes from the source, the pokemon walkthroughs. That does not render such information useless, however, and the case here is similar: information about FTFF comes from blogs and technical websites, rather than from the so-called "reliable" sources Brian referred to in the parent post. This is perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned, even though Ars Technica isn't peer-reviewed. --jacobolus (t) 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK Let's set the record straight. A decision was made to find the most rediculous, far-fetched article that still had some 'notability' tie in and use it as a flag to wave and say "Look, this one doesn't meet all the requirements as you have put them so this article shouldn't need it either". The problem with that arguement is...you are right! That article most likely violates the rules and should ALSO be in AfD! The thing that quite a few of theses AfD arguements boil down to is editors that understand the process and that not everything follows the rules, and when those articles are caught, they are cleaned up or deleted...and editors that do not understand the process and flag wave other articles that are in volation of the rules. (This is not a comment about Jacobolus, but a comment on the history of AfD's) We all know there are articles out there that deserve AfDs...all an editor has to do is look at the AfD logs day by day to see this. We know that Wikipedia is a work in process. That doesn't make it ok for articles to disregard the rules. This arguement is an end run on the rules, trying to explain why the article shouldn't have to follow them, which isn't going to win the discussion. Blogs and technical websites are not acceptable per Wikipedia's process. If anyone believes this to be wrong, then by all means fight the rules in place, but All articles must follow WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and no wikipedia rules or consensus by editors can change this. Instead of providing weak arguements about other articles' failings (which will most likely be AfD'd now that you mentioned them) provide arguements on how this article meets all the rules I have stated in that long post. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with your arguments except for the Bulbasaur part. Please read Debuskgt comment as to why Bulbasaur cannot be compared to this article. Dionyseus 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • jacobolus, you are knowingly misconstruing another article to bait Brian into unwittingly making an argument about Wiki policy that isn't true. Wiki policy specifically excludes blogs (except for special circumstances) as verifiable sources. Deal with it. Also, arguing that another, unrelated article, has problematic sources doesn't fix the inherent issues in the FTFF article. For instance, Wiki policy on content forking. And whether you want to hear it or not, FTFF isn't a social movement of the masses. It is a blanket neologism to criticize the Finder. The articles inherent problems are peripheral to the fact that the very idea of the stand alone article breaking with Wiki policy on several points, including criticism, neologisms, and NPOV. Debuskjt 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Merge. The term itself is simply defined, and documentation of the general discontent with the Finder belongs under the Finder's heading. To properly document the discontent with the Finder in this article would require duplication of information anyway.--ryos 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per Brian, except for the Bulbasaur part. Dionyseus 05:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per Brian. I'd include the Bulbasaur part, but humor clearly doesn't trav

el well here. Tychocat 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted.--SB | T 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic angry

edit

This is not a vote. Speedy tag "db band" by NawlinWiki removed with a hang on tag, so I am bringing it here. Teke 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy tagged Tim Totten; this AfD has only come about because the hang on was not added by the article's creator. Teke 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Siegler (second nomination)

edit
Joe Siegler was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-21. The result of the discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Siegler.

No assertions of notability in the current revision of the article; I looked at previous revisions and I still didn't see much notable. So he was a forum moderator of something or other ... not a big deal. Cyde Weys 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the article was blanked by me since it contained a lot of stuff that would not be suitable on Wikipedia, due to our policy on living folks (WP:LIVING). There also seems to be an edit war based on something that could have happened on Wikipedia. No vote from me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy kept. Is there really any room for doubt? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Blair

edit

An anon user has placed this tag on this article, but has not created an AfD entry for the article due to the page creation restriction. I'm listing it here to finish the process for this user. No vote. - Bootstoots 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page:
The Miss Teen USA 2006 pagent hasn't been aired yet (it is live from the West Coast). Who is claiming that Ms. Blair is the winner already? 71.134.181.209 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was aired live here. Blair won — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark4374 (talk • contribs) at 02:45, 16 August 2006

  • No Delete - While the live airing has finished for the West Coast, it can be confirmed that Katie Blair is the new winner. However, I believe that it is still too early to consider this article for deletion. A Miss Teen USA term is for one year. She has literally just become Miss Teen USA, there has been insufficient time to gauge her importance and impact to both American and other international societies. I think that we should keep this article until her Miss Teen USA term comes to an end where we can at least revisit her tenure. In addition, it is important to point out that most of her predecessors have Wikipedia articles as well. Luke 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now per Luke's logic. JoshuaZ 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hess

edit

comment: since the article has changed substantially since this AFD started, I have re-listed it for additional input. Friday (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted a couple of times as vanity and non-notable, I cleaned it up a bit, this is a judgment call per WP:MUSIC. WP:DRV seems solidly behind listing on AfD, so here it is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I'm crazy, but does being a teacher automatically make the article an advert? He's also got a few records, and he's touring Europe. I'm not saying he's obviously of encyclopedic significance, he appears to be in that gray area, but let's not hold his teaching against him, eh? Robert Fripp teaches too. Friday (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one of the first things I found googling for Robert Fripp was an article saying "I'm looking for guitar students", I'd be worried. In any case, if there are safeguards in place that this article doesn't return to gush status 24 hours after the AfD ends the closing admin can discount my vote too. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7 —Mets501 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Smith and the Gullables

edit

notability not established...no sources Anlace 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate

edit

This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Domestic Weapons Production

edit

Unnecessary fork of Hezbollah rocket force. Currently, there is no reliable source to suggest that Hezbollah has indigenous weapons production capability. Vsion 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new wrinkle

edit

This article has only been edited (beyond deleting an image and tagging as unencyclopedic) by one of the hosts. It does not appear to be notable, merely vanity. Quentin mcalmott 03:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge into Eminem. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hailie Jade Scott

edit

Being the child of a celebrity does not confer notability. JoshuaZ 03:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree strongly - considering she's featured in some of his (Eminem's) songs and videos, surely it's not a bad thing that an article on her exists. I thought that the idea of Wikipedia was to provide people with as much information on everything as possible - there's hardly anything wrong with this article. Also, people such as Frances Bean Cobain have very decent articles as well.

I think that this article should be kept - as I say, there's nothing much wrong with it, and it's definitely NOT valid for deletion.

To be fair, the Jolie-Pitts haven't really had any coverage other than being held by their beaming parents... Dev920 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She is only famous because she is Eminem's daughter. Other than this, she is not notable. And because her notability, at this point, is directly due to Eminem's actions, she should not have her own article and a merge into Eminem is the best course of action. will381796 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above points. --WillMak050389 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I agree a celebrity child does not deserve their own article for being a celebrity's child. However, a similar case was made for Frances Bean Cobain, and was voted to be kept. That girl is neither more notable than Hailie is, but to quote M A Mason on that vote, "[t]he fact that people want information about her makes her a noteworthy entry, in my view."
  • Frances Cobain, from what I read of that article, is at least living "under" her father's name in that she is actively engaging in interviews, etc. with magazines, if that makes any sense. She, herself, is deciding to use her father's notability and using it to enter the public eye. Haile, as far as I can tell, is not in the public eye except when mentioned in her father's songs, as a result of her father writing the lyrics, because he loves her and is a caring father. Haile isn't going out and giving interviews on Eminem or how his rapper lifestyle has affected her. She is only 10! Giving every celebrity's child an article based soley on their parents fame would begin a sad precedence. But I've only been really active on Wikipedia these past 3 days. Maybe the precedent already exists...will381796 05:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The WP:V and WP:NOT concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this appears to have the necessary backing in sources. Mangojuicetalk 06:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Responsibility

edit

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, this appears to be vanity. Most of this user's edits are somehow related to either Elliott Frankl or Viktor Frankl. -- JamesTeterenko 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fopkins | Talk 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Viktor Frankl article NOT PER NOM but as not YET notable enough to warrent its own article, In fact the assertion by User:JamesTeterenko that it should be deleted BECAUSE it relates to Viktor Frankl sounds very anti-semitic to me.--LackOfMotivation 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not what James meant at all. He's saying that the editor who created this article also tends to also edit the article for Elliot Frankl (though I couldn't find any indication the creator edited the other article). Please assume good faith on the part of other editors and be careful about accusations of anti-semitism. Even if you are correct, such an accusation may start an unnecessary fight.--Kchase T 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep There's enough news coverage of this statue to do an NPOV article and indicate notability, especially since the picture in this PDF indicates building has started. Merging doesn't make much sense since a building should generally be a separate article from it's creator.--Kchase T 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted below, that news is all a year old. The statue in the picture appears to be about 12-15 feet tall. That isn't the 300 foot statue being discussed. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I was expecting those hands to be the top of a statue of a person similar to Lady Liberty. In fact, they are just a scaled mock up of the full statue. I changed the strength of my vote, but I don't have any problem with keeping an article for a planned building if there are reliable sources.--Kchase T 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only because the concept is bizarre. I want a Statue of Tyranny, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article can be written if/when the statue is reality (or at least, close to reality). --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kchase. There seems to be historical significance if the idea has been brewing since the 70s, much like The Gates. SliceNYC 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, buildings don't have to be built to be notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but saying that the statue is planned to be built is not a prediction, it's a fact. Recury 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give it some time and AGF. The statue's starting to show some promise, according to the article. If cities are already bidding for it, then it means the plan's underway.--Edtalk c E 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did more research on this statue. The website is very impressive, as is their movie that you can watch. However, they are still calling for "$300 million in donations" on thier website; their website has not been updated in over a year now; and frankly, I couldn't find any credible sources that say that this statue is becoming a reality. The article has two external links, one of which is to the foundation site, and the other is to an interview conducted almost a year ago. The article has no references to any of its claims to being notable. I searched for some, but came up empty. I did not see any information confirming that there are any cities bidding for it, much less four. I did read one of the articles which stated that there were four cities "being considered". This is much different than cities actually bidding/competing for the statue. The latest article, published a year ago, states that a site would be secured in the next 12 months. I don't see any updates. Fopkins | Talk 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change the article's wording to indicate that it might not materialise. There are a number of articles (X-Seed 4000, Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid, etc) on buildings less likely to be constructed. I don't consider it crystal-balling to describe a major project with lots of press coverage. Garrepi 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as the next Olympics (2008? I can't keep track of years) are notable because there is press coverage on the plans, this statue is notable. I agree with Garrepi, however, that the wording should be changed to reflect the possibility that the statue will not be built. Srose (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - seems to be enough verifiable information out there to establish this as a real plan and not a crystal ball prediction. There also seems to be some historic context behind it as well, but would prefer to see more flesh to the article if anyone knowledgable enough on the subject can help it. Arkyan 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unencyclopedic vanity/promo article for a non-notable project. KleenupKrew 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V - article states four cities are "competing" to be the site of the statue; point of fact, the statute's own website says four sites are being reviewed for the statue, and that after the statue is built on private property, it will be offered to the nearest municipality. WP is also not a newspaper, and this article appears to pander to the fundraising efforts for the statue. And the bottomline remains, the statue isn't built yet, and unlike the Olympics which seems to have a rich and confirmed history of occurring every so often, the statue is still just a vision in my crystal ball. Come back after it's built. Tychocat 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Garrepi --69.158.183.223 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, author request. - Bobet 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VaultLine

edit

Does not meet WP:CORP criteria; prod tagged removed without comment; less than 700 Google hits, no news articles OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK After reading WP:CORP and WP:VSCA I feel sufficently put in my place. Can I just delete the page now?[email protected] 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page with {{db-author}}, since the author (you) has requested deletion. That should take care of it.--Kchase T 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Force Fed Records

edit

Non-notable record label, only a few years old with only a few bands.--Zxcvbnm 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulys sub

edit

Non-notable minor regional sub chain. Article was proposed for deletion but then deprodded by an anonymous editor. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria would it be speedy-able? It's a company and not a person/group, so the criteria for no assertion of notability isn't applicable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider this speedy-able under A7. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I include NN companies in this category. Only if the notability is questionable or disputed would I take it to AfD. But again, please, correct me if I'm wrong. Fopkins | Talk 05:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one were to stick to the wording of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, with regard to A7's statement of, "real person, group of people, band, or club", it's not speediable as a company is not exactly a "group of people" or a "club". There's a lot of leeway in tagging things speedy under the various criteria. For instance, G4 specifically states "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions...", but I see it used for to tag things that were speedy deleted, but, I don't really care and leave it there. Some other people do care and the tag vanishes. In short, it all depends on the person that comes by next and sees the tag and whether or not they've read WP:SNOW. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how one wishes to play around with the wording, A7 definitely does not apply to corporations. There have been attempts to expand it to cover companies, but they have not been successful yet. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Green Dragon

edit

Original research and an indiscriminate collection of info whose notability is not established. The three paragraphs in this article are each talking about a different dragon, with no apparent connection between them aside from what the author of the article wanted to see. wikipediatrix 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DR ABC

edit

As somebody with an advanced knowledge of emergency medicine, I have never heard of DR ABC. The medical acronym ABC is much more common and the one used in modern first aid courses. In addition, the simplification and walkthrough of the article is not consistant with wikipedia's enclopedia goal. St.isaac 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. No need to drag this on any further. SynergeticMaggot 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Pink Unicorn

edit

Non-notable in-joke among some Usenet members. Only 682 unique Google hits, and there are even duplicates among those. (Incidentally, two of the three "references" in the article do not mention the IPU at all, and the third is a personal Geocities site of one of the members of this quaint little club.) wikipediatrix 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This is not an in-joke, but is referenced in print media and books (Example ike Rolling Uphill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism

by Dianna Narciso) May very well need clean-up and improved references.

  • Strong keep. There are numerous references outside usenet. This Google search turned up 55,200 results. The article can use some cleanup as far as cites are concerned, though I would disagree on the NPOV criticisms, but that doesn't make an entry non-notable. Wyatt Riot 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you start advancing thru those 55,200 results, you'll see that the listing hits a dead end here, after 715 unique hits (It was 682 earlier). In other words, the other 54,000 hits are from these same sources. Therefore, the IPU has only 715 different sources mentioning it on Google (and it's far less than 715 when you subtract the many mirrors of the Wikipedia article itself). wikipediatrix 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand how Google unique hits works. First google finds roughly how many pages contain the term (55,200). Then it takes the first thousand and runs the uniqueness filter on those thousand pages. So of the first one thousand hits 715 are unique. The other 54,200 pages contain more unique pages. For a very rough guesstimate of all unique pages calculate thusly: 55200 * (715 / 1000) =~ 39,000 unique pages (i.e. assume that 71,5% of those 55,200 are unique). Weregerbil 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, to test this: search for "Microsoft". At this time google finds 191 unique hits. I think it's safe to say more than 191 web pages in the world mention Microsoft. Weregerbil 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or search for "White House". At this time Google only finds 821 unique hits. [7] Google's uniqueness test is highly unreliable. Dionyseus 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really unreliable, it just works in a certain way that is easy to misunderstand. Weregerbil 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Wyatt Riot. More references are probably needed, but the existence of a large number of external links suggests that more references can probably be found. I know it doesn't count for anything, but the fact that this "quaint little club" has crossed my radar - and I'm hardly even aware of what Usenet is - would say that it's gone a bit further than the nominator would have thought. BigHaz 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is just as real and verifiable as the pages about God. That is its point. If it gets deleted, it would only follow logic to get rid of pages concerning other gods.
  • Strong Keep per BigHaz - I have also come across IPUists without having any idea of what Usenet is; such cultural concepts tend to spread through the Internet, so the article might be more visited in the future. I myself have embraced the IPU concept, and this article has been very informative to me. I believe that Google count is not the only standard by which articles should be kept or deleted; after all this is an encyclopedia, not a mere factbook of popular ideas/objects. — Bill the Greek 08:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per Wyatt Riot Martinp23 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep this pink and more furry variant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Unfortunately, things like this are notable. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If wikipediatrix's claim regarding the references is correct, since this isn't a vote and no one has provided other sources, an admin with some chutzpah could close this as "delete" no matter how many people say keep. A large number of google hits where there might be sources doesn't mean anything. It says in giant black letters on the verifiability policy that "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So chop-chop, get to work. - brenneman {L} 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I've already added a direct reference to IPU from the alt.atheism FAQ, and I'll be adding more cites shortly. Wyatt Riot 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That very page makes the excellent point that "Because alt.athe ism is a n unmoderated newsgroup, it tends to be high in volume and high in noise." This does not qualify as a reliable source. - brenneman {L} 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is so obvious about it? wikipediatrix 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh - referenced (thought not completely) article on a widespread cultural phenomenon of encyclopaedic interest. WilyD 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep. I have never used that phrase before, this is NOT a NN in-joke, at all. J Milburn 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - wikipediatrix (who incidentally has broken wikipedia's rules in choosing her username, implying some kind of official position) has given no reason whatsoever why the article should be deleted. I get 48,000 google hits, but thats not the point. It is not an 'in joke', it is a serious device for the discussion of the logical arguments behind religious belief, and the modern day evolution of earlier concepts such as Bertrand Russells teapot. I propose that wikipediatrix should be deleted. Poujeaux 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hey - no need for personal attacks - whilst one may be hard pressed to figure out how Wikipediatrix remained unaware of this all this time, no need to assume bad faith - it's just a mistake on her part, and we all make mistakes. WilyD 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking the nominator is a sure sign of desperation. I stand by my comments, and note that many of the "Keep" voters are not giving valid policy-based reasons for their vote. I remain unconvinced of this subject's notability. wikipediatrix 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be surprised to discover that notability isn't a criterion for deletion. The article passes WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:HOAX, WP:COPYVIO and WP:VAIN, the only policies or guidelines that are really appropriate for discussing a potential deletion to this article. WilyD 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it passes WP:V, because WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." What do we have? A couple of Usenet items (not valid sources), a Geocities personal site (not a valid source), a Carl Sagan book that does not mention the IPU, and some near-nonsense text called " Red Iguana Dawn" that also does not mention the IPU. wikipediatrix 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The alt-atheism.org is an okay source, without checking too much I think one or two of the external links are okay sources as well. Not a real big deal, given the overwhelming concensus to keep here. WilyD 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It very much is a big deal - consensus on a micro-forum like this cannot override one our most core policies. Currently the sum total of citations in reliable sources appears to be "The campers said they like the intellectual games, including an "invisible unicorn" exercise. Campers must try to prove that imaginary unicorns - as a metaphor for God - don't exist." from Cincinnati.Com  » The Enquirer  » Local news. - brenneman {L} 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that you are making it a bigger deal than it actually is, Aaron. The article is better cited than most of Wikipedia's articles. You earlier mentioned that you fear a rogue administrator with some "chutzpah" may delete the article despite the 100% concensus to keep the article, well you really shouldn't fear that because that's what we have the Deletion Review process for, to protect articles from mistakes and rogue administrators.Dionyseus 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete AdamBiswanger1 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brightscore

edit

Prod and Prod2 removed without explanation, so bringing here. This appears to be an ad for a product that apparently gets 977 Google hits [8], but looks like blatant advertising. I don't see any outside coverage of note for the product. Doesn't seem to meet much of any guidelines. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin close this as a successful deletion? will381796 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but I'll take the liberty of doing so. AdamBiswanger1 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per bad faith nomination. SynergeticMaggot 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grynner

edit

Irrelevant no name "musician" delete ASAP

Delete , Not up to Wikipedia standards for a wikipedia article.>Remove double vote by nominator.

  • Speedy Keep per Kinu and his disregard for policy per personal attack on my talk page. Nothing is wrong with the article, it is simply a stub, possibly in need of attention from the cleanup taskforce. --Draicone (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing this incomplete nomination page for possibility of speedy keep. --Kinu t/c 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep at 500 miles per hour. Kimchi.sg 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 401

edit

This Highway is not important/is not well known. Wikipedia should only have articles for WELL KNOWN roads. Besides, this road is not used too much Johnmatting 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big three (Oakland A's Pitchers)

edit

Insufficiently unique nomenclature and insufficient historical significance even just in the baseball circles. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Three people left my school this year who'd been there more than 100 years and joked as being called the Big Three - I don't see an article for them on WP. Not really notable enough on its own, but could be merged into the names of the respective members of the "big 3". Martinp23 09:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - info belongs at individuals' articles, and possibly the team article. JPD (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination Carax 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worth a mention in the pitchers' and team's articles, but the term wasn't used widely enough and, frankly, the pitchers weren't so successful that there's historical significance. SliceNYC 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the article and thought I should explain my thoughts. In the Bay Area at least, the term seemed widely used enough. I heard it often enough on the news, in the paper, and on espn that it stuck with me. Also, I can't think of any other dominant groupings of MLB players in this decade. Kwondoleeza
  • Delete Information is legitimate, but it doesn't really deserve its own article. An (unlinked) mention on the Big three disambiguation page is probably good enough. Zagalejo 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even within Baseball circle the reference doesn't have notability to go beyond this current decade, namely because the lack of any lasting legacy. Only Zito won a Cy Young and the Big 3 never even got the A's to the World Series. Agne 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Big Three is a part of the A's history and it deserves an article, just like The Killer B's for the Astros. I don't see any reason to delete this article. However, it should be expanded to describe their performances, statistics and effect on the team's success. Canjth 21:19 18 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep —Mets501 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janan Sawa

edit

Appears to assert insufficient notability. Delete unless notability shown during discussion. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I tried to find his album 'Nohadra' at amazon.com and didn't find it. Dionyseus 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — notability not asserted asrequired by WP:MUSIC - it is up to the article to prove its notability Martinp23 10:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is silly. He is THE most famous Assyrian musician yet he can't have an article on wiki? If he can't have an article, then that means there cannot be any Assyrian musician articles on wiki? Until Assyrian music becomes famous in the world? If you go through amazon you will realise that there is no/little albums of Assyrian music. It is not our fault that Assyrian music is not popular enough around the world for it to be on amazon. 3,200 GOOGLE hits is not enough? I didn't know wiki music article must go through the amazon test? Chaldean 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, if he's "the most famous Assyrian musician," he should be kept. The question is, is he? If he is, there has to be some objective way to show that he is. --

Nlu (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find any other Assyrian musician with that amount of Google hits. Just try and see what happens. See if anybody else comes close to 3,200. You ask "is he the most famous" - well buddy you would not know if you weren't part of our community. This is what ticks me about wiki. People take actions on things they dont know about. Instead of going for a delete, dont you think it would make sence asking one of us if indeed he is one of the famous? You obviously lack knowledge about the subject, so why do you care as much to a point that makes you take actions? Chaldean 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion is not fact. Can you show verifiability? That is a requirement on Wikipedia. If you disagree with Wikipedia's principles, maybe you shouldn't be here. --
Your little mind is not getting the point. Maybe it is you who should not be here, since you seem to be all about distruction then creation. Chaldean 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WCW alumni

edit

This article is being considered for deletion because of an existing category of the same quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay4president (talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy keep as out of process, this has to go to MfD. However, not a chance in the world that it gets deleted as it is a running AfD discussion. -- Koffieyahoo 05:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2

edit

this page is out of control. it's become entirely too long and the debate is irreleveant. WP:NOT a soapbox, my friends. Delete -Eteled 05:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as repost -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro Wong

edit

Speedy Delete - Recreation of previously deleted article - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvaro Wong Essexmutant 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep as this is a nomination by a new user on a vandalism spree. -- Koffieyahoo 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Te Atairangikaahu

edit

Non-notable. Delete -Eteled 06:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jacob

edit

Vanity :--Chris Griswold | talk | contribs 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 06:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put just a little more effort into your nominations. Actually writing a reason for deletion, rather than just spitting forth the epithet "vanity" (autobiographical articles, while unfortunate, need not be deleted), would be a definite plus here. Oh, and if you could use a less florid signature, that'd be great, too. I've taken the liberty of reducing the five-line monstrosity on this subpage. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Chris Griswold 08:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio R Romania

edit

Untranslated Romanian after two weeks at WP:PNT. Subject appears to be a Romanian radio station. Delete unless an English article is written in this place. Kusma (討論) 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion of the article took place at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.
The language of this article is Romanian?. Khatru2 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Romanian, but rather odd Romanian: there don't seem to be any diacritics at all. I don't know enough to be sure where they should go, but I'm certain that in that amount of text there should be some î, ş or ţ. In other words, it's Romanian in ASCII - which suggests to me that it's just been dumped in WP from somewhere else. Also, though it does contain a history of the station, it looks rather like an ad. It's even got the full daily schedules. ColinFine 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add new discussion below.

Can an admin go ahead and speedy delete this? will381796 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBits

edit

Not notable. Does not meet WP:SOFT Promotion. Sleepyhead 08:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY REVERT to the original, correct version. JIP | Talk 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Hartikainen

edit

This nomination was improperly formatted, so I've fixed it. AfD was removed (presumably inadvertently) by User:Icheb2 when they reverted from the AfD'd version (seen now) to the earlier version. I admittedly know nothing about Finnish soccer, but if this is indeed correctly an article for a Finnish player who meets WP:BIO, the article should be reverted to the last good version about the soccer player and this AfD Closed.--Isotope23 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspatchia

edit

Non-notable RPG Maker game. Unreleased, title gets zero google hits. Deprodded. Weregerbil 08:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ionic extremeties

edit

Article is unreferenced, and I think the article title is misspelled. I'm not even sure that the term exists- google is no help. I've had it up for wikification and references for almost a month, and no movement on that end. I think it's time to send it to the great big beaker in the sky. Captainktainer * Talk 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Tirlannon

edit

Is this a notable epic book series (really one book)? Reads like an ad for a self-published book ("Lulu" press which prints books on demand). Google finds little or nothing outside myspace and a few chat forums[10]. Weregerbil 10:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you google "tirlannon" alone, you'll yield more results. I can see debating neutrality on this entry. It is a problem in which editing can rectify, but deletion is not warranted. The series exists. The author would prefer to not seek traditional publication at this time for a multitude of reasons, none of which include rejection by publishers. Sage Tuvitor 10:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limiting articles and not including independently ("indie") published work doesn't make much sense. I fail to see how this is any different than allowing a message board entry on Wikipedia or anything else that only returns such results from Google. The novel has a fairly substantial fanbase along the West Coast of North America as well as the south-eastern edge of North America. With appearances at conventions such as Dragon*Con and the like from the author himself, I fail to see why this article should be deleted. If a synopsis of the story would help the article, that can easily be expanded upon. There's also been a D&D game story around the "series" for nearly a decade. I don't see how it isn't noteable - it may not be as widely known as Tolkien's work or even Kevin J. Anderson's, but it is notable. kimopupule 6:25am, 16 August 2006 (EST)
  • Delete Vanity Non-traditional press, no Amazon hits. Essentially undistributed. Dlyons493 Talk 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity press? The Amazon entry had to be re-started from scratch due to a mix-up with the distribution packages. Vanity press? As the author of this work, I take serious offense to your choice of words. Sage Tuvitor 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users first edits since March 2006 are only related to this.--Andeh 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how the deletion of this article contributes to the overall goal of Wikipedia. The Legacy of Tirlannon not just one book, but rather an entire project based on a constructed universe written by the author, Patrick Reid. Additionally, this project has already seen contributions from several artists, performers and musicians. True, to date there is just one published book, but that is far from the end of the story. Fact is, the fictional realm Tirlannon is filled with as much history and detail as Narnia or Middle-Earth. The construction, writing, publication and collaboration that have taken place since the project began nearly a decade ago is most certainly of worth to others who may be interested in undertaking similar projects of their own. That goes for the distribution process as well (which seems to be the main objection to the article). Instead of being critical of an article because the book series is being independently published, why not stop and ask why such a decision is being made? The promotional process of Tirlannon, again, may be of interest to authors who do not want to sacrifice full rights to their work, purely to be published as soon as possible.

    Bottom line: There is much to learn about the process that brought Tirlannon to the public, the process in which Tirlannon is being marketed independently -- as well as the fictional realm itself. Deleting this article would be fundamentally against the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Enigma Publius 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Enigma Publius (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

This contributor's first edit. Welcome to Wikipedia! Weregerbil 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete I am an author of sorts myself, and I find the journey of this author and his creative process to be invaluable to someone who is walking in his footsteps. Just because there is no big corporate backing, doesn't make the story or novel any less a work of art worthy of discussion. In fact I would challenge most "published" authors to come up with half the details Patrick Read has developed in this project. With a west coast book tour, and an upcoming east coast tour, I believe this is definitely worthwhile reading. Oros— Possible single purpose account: Oros (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
This contributor's first edit. Welcome to Wikipedia! Weregerbil 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these comments have actually to do with the article. We're absolutely not concerned about how smart the author is or how intricate the book or its milieu is; We're concerned on how widely known they are and whether or not we can tell stuff about them verifiably. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Dlyons493; fails WP:BK due to lack of WP:V and independent coverage. --Kinu t/c 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is essentially no debate here. There has been no assertion of notability, and thus cannot be any debate. Once an assertion of notability is made, then Kinu has already pointed out the appropriate sources of policy on the matter. Please note that the TYPE of publisher is not at issue here, only notability (though non-traditional publishers present us with unique challenges in assessing notability, obviously). -Harmil 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No independent coverage from reliable sources showing verifiability. Wickethewok 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my mind. Delete the article. Perhaps its creation was premature at this point. Sage Tuvitor 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BK. This may be an ambitious project, but the only book published in it so far has an Amazon.com sales rank of "none". If the project ever attains notability, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all due respect to the efforts. Sadly, the path of self-publishing is the path of loneliness; If there's no demonstrable fame, there should not be article either. Subject's self-evident worthiness is regrettably subjective, but fame, if it exists, can be demonstrated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Pereira

edit

Article appears to be a vanity article, whereas the person in question is of little note. It also appears to be partially autobigraphical, with this individual and Nikki Hipkin having written articles about each other to conceal their own involvement.

I am therefore also nominating the Nikki Hipkin page for deletion for the same reasons.

PoliSciMaster 10:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but being a delegate to a leadership convention makes someone politically active, not a "political figure." Nor do any of the other activities of these two individuals. They are minor players who do not merit their own entry. As for the Paulsen article, you may have a point. She has also been a candidate for the House of Commons, many of whom garnered their own entries on that basis alone. PoliSciMaster 05:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Calling them "political figures" is a bit of a stretch. Just because they are party members and active within the Liberal party does not make them notable. Especially if their biggest claim to fame is to be 1 of 5000 delegates for one party. No Vote on Tiffany Paulson, whom I really think should be in her own AfD, as she isnt related to the subjects of these two articles. Resolute 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jennifer Pereira and Nikki Hipkin. Keep Tiffany Paulsen. Saskatoon is the lagest city in Saskatchewan (as notted above) and Tiffany Paulsen has been a long serving member of the city council and the deputy mayor. If need be, her article could be merged into an article about the city council as a whole. She should probably be nominated in her own AFD though. The closing admin should take into account the votes above the adding of Tiffany Paulsen to this nom can't be taken as deletes for her article, as it was added afterwards. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jennifer and Nikki; agree that Tiffany should be handled in a separate AFD. In fact, I've now split Tiffany off to her own AFD page — all voters and closing admin are advised that in this debate, only Jennifer and Nikki are to be considered; Tiffany is to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Paulsen. Bearcat 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firegarden

edit

Non-notable band Dancarney 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chia-Liu Yuan

edit

The subject of this article is non-notable and should not have an article. An article shouldn't exist solely because of a relation (grandchild) of someone who is actually notable. JSIN 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tebow

edit

Was listed for speedy deletion as a repost because of an earlier speedy deletion. I would prefer a dicussion over this article, so I bring it here. As a college football player bio, it is probably borderline in terms of notability, but as I have not much experience with American football, I would like to bring this to the attention of a wider community. No vote. Kusma (討論) 11:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is currently one of the most highly touted freshman quarterbacks in college football and according to reports will most likely see playing time this year. In addition, being featured in an ESPN documentary, being All-American and whatnot are enough to make him notable in my eyes. DrunkenSmurf 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrunkenSmurf. Almost 50,000 google hits for "Tim Tebow" football. Zagalejo 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the part about the etymology of the name Tim, and his parent's profession. This is not relavant to his notability claims. --Xrblsnggt 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I believe the profession of his parents contributes greatly to the reason he was homeschooled and the combination of the two is the direct reason why he was featured in the ESPN documentary. While it might not have anything to do with his notability per se, it is IMO an important piece of his personal history. And since the article is a biography of a person it would make no sense to delete it. DrunkenSmurf 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been deleted before, but there is no point in doing it. It is relevant within college football, and we'd just need to add him again in 12 months when there could be no doubt to his relevance as he would be a starting QB for a major program. WTStoffs 05:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrunkenSmurf, looks notable within the realm of Americna college football, a nationally televised sport. RFerreira 07:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep quite possibly going to be the starting quarterback for a Top 25 team; in college football, it doesn't get any more notable than that. Stilgar135 05:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Imagine (song). Canderson7 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutopia

edit

Fancruft. kingboyk 11:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Pop

edit

This is a page I have looked at a couple of times, and I have now decided to nominate it for deletion. It is completely unsourced, which I know is not grounds for deletion at all, but on a google search, I could not turn up a single referance that Wikipedia would allow as a source actually trying to define the genre. I found a few references to an album called 'Dark Pop' by The Colour Guard, and a couple of rather obscure artists claiming to be Dark Pop, but often this seemed, rather than being a different genre, to be pop, that happened to be quite dark. There were also a few very small online stores that grouped artists together as 'Dark pop', and none of the artists mentioned on these were on the list in this article. Furthermore, when I had a look through this list, none of the bands that were claimed to be 'Dark Pop' mentioned the fact that they were on their own respective articles, and some of them had very long lists of genres that the artist could fall under. I feel that 'Dark Pop' is either Pop that happens to be rather dark, or one specific album of the same title, and not a stand alone genre. I can see where the authors are coming from with their article, and this also happens to be not so far from music that I personally like, but, as it stands, I believe this to be original research. J Milburn 12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thankyou for your support, I was uncertain what to do about the article. J Milburn 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nandesuka 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE world champions by age

edit

Delete. Age lists are useless trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs)
This AfD wasn't properly listed. Listing it now and fixing its nomination. --JoanneB 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is listcruft. This is wikipedia, not just a wrestling site. Why does age matter so much? Length lists are somewhat important (I suppose), but not that much better. RobJ1981 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete information in articles should be as stable as possible, and we can't be certain that the birthdates are totally correct anyways. I also agree with the points made by wikipediatrix. Burgwerworldz 05:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Bolton

edit

Subpage of a fictional character in High School Musical. Content already has a complete summary located in High School Musical#Troy Bolton. Article also has uncited statements regarding this fictional character. Edtalk c E 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

--Edtalk c E 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — FireFox (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2006

Angelica Kreuger

edit

Article was prod'd with the rationale "As with many minor royal figures, the subject does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO standards and avoids WP:CSD A7 {{db-bio}} if (and only if) being 88th in line to the UK throne is a claim of notability. No hits on Google News and no ghits for "Angelica Krueger" site:bbc.co.uk. Unless the standards for inclusion differ radically, this person should not have an article on Wikipedia as no facts beyond her mere existence and parentage can be verified." Prod tag removed without explanation. It is perfectly possible that there are reliable sources available offline which make the case for including the subject. It has not escaped my attention that there are many editors who believe that the faintest hint of royalty makes a subject worthy of a bio on Wikipedia, but that's not what WP:BIO says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 88th in line?! She's not going to come to power unless there's a massive natural disaster of some kind. Her only newsworthy feat was to be born into a royal family. Srose (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm having trouble verifying this directly, but I believe she may be 5th in line to the Romanian throne (given that her mother is 3rd, and 86th to Britain, she has an older brother (87th to Britain, I think 4th to Romania) and then she's next (88th to Britain, 5th to Romania). WilyD 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to this page, the succession is (or, more accurately was at the time Romania was still a monarchy) only open to males, in the male line. And of course, Romania is a republic, so being in line for the throne isn't notable as it is unlikely to be inherited by anyone. And being 88th in line to the UK throne is highly non-notable. Aristocruft. Lurker oi! 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - well, this is a pretty good point. But I did find there's still a "monarchy in exile" for Romania, so we ought to afford some standard of notability to the position. Still, if the succession is not for ladies, then there's not much here. As far as I can tell, 88th is too far down the British line to get auto-notability - which cuts off at 39th. WilyD 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The sources I'm looking at say that only Romanian males are entitled to the throne. Of course, I'm not looking at any Romanian-language sites (I can't speak a word of it and don't trust online translating services, i.e. babelfish), and some of these are off webservers like geocities... Srose (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - okay, so if we can find a more authoritative source that women can inherit the throne, I'm pretty sure she's a keep - if not, I'm pretty sure she's a delete (or merge somewhere?). Since all our (not that reliable) sources say she's not in line for the Romanian throne, I guess it's a provisional delete, unless we find a more authoritative source on the Romanian Monarchy that says she can get the crown. WilyD 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - although the Romanian throne was, per the Romanian monarchical constitution, only open to males, and thus King Michael's heir under the official law would be the Prince of Hohenzollern or some close relative of the Prince of Hohenzollern, King Michael has declared his eldest daughter Margarita (the subject of this article's aunt) to be his heir. I'm not sure if he's officially altered the order of succession further than this, and of course it's dubious whether he has the right to declare his daughter to be the heir. It seems likely, though, that at least some (if not most) Romanian monarchists will recognize Margarita as head of house when the King dies. john k 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as an encylopedia of British royalty wikipedia has space for more than 100 entries. Kappa 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question It also has space for more than 1,000,000 entries. Let's try and agree a guideline here - will you vote delete on number 1,000,001? This is a genuine, not a rhetorical question! Dlyons493 Talk
I was thinking of 100 as a reasonable limit for comprehensive coverage. Kappa 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I was mistakenly reading your 100 as as a lower bound rather than an approximate limit and was trying to find some upper bound to at least give a range for discussion. Probably most editors then would agree with a range of [10, 100] for discussion purposes (where no other notability is claimed for the person). Dlyons493 Talk 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure. She's a granddaughter of the last king of Romania, which surely gives her a slight amount of notability. Whether it's sufficient for an entire article about her, I don't really know. john k 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would say not (though the authors of the notability essay on royalty say that the grandchild of a former monarch is notable, regardless of schievement and media coverage (or lack of). I don't buy it- I really don't see the grandchild of a deposed king being intrinsically notable Lurker oi! 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'm inclined to agree here. Her position may make her notable (Either in the British Succession or the Romanian one), but her parentage does not. I'm not convinced that her position in line to the British Throne will get her past WP:BIO, I am convinced that if we can verify she's fifth in line to the Romanian Throne, exile or not, she then passes WP:BIO nicely. WilyD 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment
          1. The British Constitution does not distinguish between persons who are the first or 900th in the Line of succession to the British Throne: if called to the throne, whether by the death of one or 899 persons, whether titled or not, rich or poor, the heir automatically and inescapably becomes Monarch. That is one of several laws that apply to and render notable those in the British succession: one may not unilaterally decline the honor without passage of a specific Parliamentary law excusing one from the duty of reigning. Other laws applicable to some in the line of succession restrict who, how old, and where these persons are allowed to marry (and ignoring the law doesn't just void one's place in line -- rather, it voids the marriage!) When Princess Caroline of Monaco married Prince Ernst August of Hanover in 1999, both of them required the permission of two of the modern world's historical "Great Powers": France had to signal its official acquiescence to her marriage, and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom had to issue an Order-in-Council authorizing him to marry her. She was second in the line of succession to Monaco's throne, and he was about 360th in line to the UK's. Yet the moment they were married the groom permanently dropped out of the UK's succession order because his bride is a Roman Catholic. But their six year-old daughter is in line to succeed to the crowns of both Monaco and the UK, and is subject to both realms' laws governing royalty -- would that make her notable? Only those of the blood royal are subject to these kinds of obscure but fascinating and very real restrictions -- and how near or distant they are to the throne is immaterial.
          2. No, Angelica isn't anywhere in the line of succession to the defunct Romanian crown, but is that the criterion? Suppose Prince William of Wales marries a Roman Catholic this year and has a daughter by this time next year: she will not be in the UK's line of succession. But will she be notable? Absolutely. Not because of her succession rights, but because of her kinship to the British royal family.
          3. Notability is not the same as distinction: One distinguishes oneself, but notability is something that is attributed to one by others. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York get somewhat more media coverage than Peter and Zara Phillips, but the difference is not huge: Coverage of their lives does not derive from royal titles or succession rights, but from the fact that all four are grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II -- two in the male, and two in the female line. Ergo, virtually any relative of a reigning monarch is inherently notable, because many people are curious about the lives and lifestyles of that rare and endangered species: royalty.
          4. How notable deposed monarchs' families are will depend greatly on the time elapsed since deposition. King Michael of Romania's grandchildren draw little media coverage because he lost his throne half a century ago. Much more interest is shown in the grandchildren of King Constantine II of the Hellenes because he only lost his throne in the 1970s. More interest is also shown in the grandchildren of ex-King Simeon of Bulgaria because, although he lost his throne before King Michael, he returned to Bulgaria in the 21st century as President. That brings up another relevant criterion: historically, exiled monarchs or their issue often return to national sovereignty or influence and, history noting that pattern, an encyclopedia should not be as short-memoried as a newspaper. I'd suggest that all children, all dynastic descendants and/or the heir of living ex-monarchs be deemed notable. Angelica Kreuger, as it happens, doesn't qualify because she is not a dynastic grand-daughter of a living ex-king -- daughters of daughters did not belong to Romania's royal family when enthroned, so they need not be considered royal on WP. Lethiere 04:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have been using [11] as a guideline for whether I argue to keep or delete people in line for the British Throne during the rampant nominations going on. I agree with the position that merely being related to someone famous confers no status, but disagree with the position merely being in line for a crown confers no status. Being in line for a crown is a position, but some disingenious person will ask "Well, I'm like 33 millionth in the line of ascention, why don't I get an article? Ha, I pwnd you." - and I have said that anyone who's verifiable may be worthy of an article, and I would likely opt for inclusion. But if she's just related to someone notable - ugh, no thanks. WilyD 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • She is most certainly not fifth in line to the Romanian throne under the old monarchical constitution. She is not in line for the throne at all. Her grandfather may have "amended" the laws of succession to declare her in line for the pretendership, but I'm not sure - somebody would have to look this up. Of course the old king has no authority to do under the old monarchical constitution, but the old monarchical constitution is a dead letter anyway - and if, by some fluke, the Romanian monarchy got restored (it is actually quite possible it might have been restored shortly after the fall of communism, if things had gone differently), it is unlikely that the old constitution would be restored, so I'm not sure how to consider this. Her mother is, however, a princess. john k 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?). Perhaps some people "voted" based on her position in the British line of succession, which isn't really important compared to her being the granddaughter of Mihai I. Ardric47 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm pretty sure most of us would vote keep if she was fifth in line to the Romanian throne, but merely "child of famous person X" isn't enough, she needs some criterion of her own (like holding a position in line to the throne), since she doesn't, she doesn't make the cut. If it turns out she is (I'm not sure this is totally clear), then she stays. WilyD 04:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Ardric47- I don't think being the verifiable grandchild of a deposed king is enough to confer notability. In fact, I would only regard the child of a deposed monarch as notable if they were a prince/princess at the time of their parents' deposition/abdication. I would change my vote only if it was shown there was a realistic chance of this royal house regaining the throne. Then someone in succession would be notable, as someone with a real chance of becoming a future monarch Lurker oi! 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether or not she's Google-able, her royal status automatically gives her notability. I would also support a Merge to the mother's article, Princess Irina of Romania. --Elonka 04:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremley non-notable. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless she is actually a royal herself (i.e. a princess), I don't think she should have a page. John Smith's 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this apply to Zara Phillips and Lord Linley, as well? john k 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zara is notable via WP:BIO, Mr. Lindley doesnt look notable at all. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we adopt the exceedingly narrow proposals for notability, Lindley would qualify at birth by being 5th in line - can people genuinely become "unencyclopaedic" - this seems like a fairly strange claim, if we're trying to being an encyclopaedia for the ages, rather than just a news source. WilyD 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Linley is frequently discussed in the British press, as far as I can gather. A google news search turns up this from The Times, from a couple of weeks ago. One would imagine that a Lexis-Nexis search would probably turn up considerable press coverage of Linley. I think if you look into it you'll discover that even more distant people get a fair amount of coverage in the British press - there was press coverage when Lady Helen Taylor, the Duke of Kent's daughter, had her children, for instance, and coverage (and criticism, of course) of Marina Ogilvy, Princess Alexandra's daughter, when she was on public assistance. Even people only distantly connected to the royal family get fairly significant coverage in the British press. john k 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, non-royal private individual who's mother is by chance a Romanian princess. Charles 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to have to go with deleting, I think, after some thought. Her mother is probably notable, but she is not. john k 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her trifle info will find its home at her mother's article, if worth preserving here. As individual, Angelica is not notable enough. Suedois 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself virtually proves her non-notability (i.e. nothing more than the barest genealogical information). I'm about as "pro-royal" as you can get, but that doesn't mean I think there should be an article on every relative of a royal. Noel S McFerran 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — NN. Dionyseus 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Daniel.Bryant 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna khatri

edit

Delete. I put this up to be speedied but the author delisted. A delightful mix of incoherence and non-notability.--Pyroclastic 13:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Mario

edit

I prod'd because there were no reliable sources. Prod was removed(then someone foolishly readded it) I changed to afd, as my concerns about reliable sources were not addressed i kan reed 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-hey! Now that's how to bring up a de-PRODding in an AfD nomination; good stuff. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never Stop Doing What You Love

edit

Non-notable compilation album, no new songs. kingboyk 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentI don't know much about Paul McCartney, but I do know that he is very famous. Shouldn't his albums then be notable?--Edtalk c E 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, this is a private compilation. Delete of course. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of think Keep actually. Although not a commercially released compilation, it was widely distributed as a freebie. Of sufficient interest. That said, the article should be put in proper format. Ac@osr 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, Merge to Fidelity Investments. Info belongs there - new marketing method - newspaper article about innovative efforts in marking financial services to baby boomers - but as an article about the release itself, it's valueless. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fidelity Investments per Crzrussian. Lar: t/c 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Strong disagree with the proposed merging. The compilation is a Beatles/McCartney collector item, more relevant to Beatles and McCartney collectors than it is to Fidelity Investments. The page had previously been linked by Paul McCartney and Paul McCartney discography, but not by Fidelity Investments. People following the compilations link from the discography article will be understandibly jarred and confused by the redirect to Fidelity, as the entry in the discography list makes no mention of Fidelity's involvement. I believe the article should be kept as is. It includes a track listing which will be of interest to collectors, yet a merge with Fidelity that includes the track listing will be beyond the scope of that particular article. I also believe the innovative marketing section added during this discussion's temporary closure ought to be retained at the Fidelity article. Thanks to CrazyRussian for reopening this discussion for me (I was in the middle of typing when it was closed). I hope this makes sense to you all. Rohirok 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discography could make mention of Fidelity in the entry for this, that seems an easily overcomeable objection, but it is not the crux if I understand you. The merge has been done, right? I think we need a case made that this is notable in its own right for folk to change their minds about this merge being a good idea. DO we have any significant media references to this? That usually seals the deal. Lar: t/c 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ad campaign is documented in a Slate column, though it makes no mention of the associated compilation CD. The CD itself is briefly discussed by the campaign's main creator in an advertising industry publication. I think people have resisted the notion that this compilation deserves its own article within the McCartney discography because it is little more than a lame advertising gimmick (hence the merge with Fidelity). And they're right, of course--the CD is part of a sad, synergistic sales strategy. But it is also now a highly sought-after fan collectible, mentioned on Beatles/McCartney fansites [12] [13] and sold online at a greatly inflated price.[14] It thus has significance beyond its use as a marketing freebie. The people who will be most interested in this information won't be the ones reading Fidelity's article--they'll be the fans and collectors interested in McCartney and the albums and compilations which he's had a hand in producing. What began as a marketing trinket has become a fan collectible, and is more notable as such. That's why I think the disk deserves its own article in the McCartney discography, complete with track listing. Rohirok 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the arguments and sources given above (please get some of this content to the article ASAP though, including evidence of collectability) I have changed my thinking, I now think that the article should be unmerged and think Keep is the right outcome. Lar: t/c 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some references and an external link. One of the links (Boston Globe) I couldn't get into proper reference format, for some reason. The web address kept appearing as a hyperlink, so I just put it in there without a link title. If I had time right now, I'd rewrite this and perhaps expand it using the new sources. Anyway, I think there's something to work with here, and will revisit it tomorrow, if it hasn't been deleted. Rohirok 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to those above for the research and improvements (with "those above," I'm speaking of my fellow editors, not the divine) -MrFizyx 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Seems interesting and well-sourced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above keep voters--Edtalk c E 13:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD G3. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Days (song)

edit

Hoax. Google gives no non-wikipedia hits [15] Hraefen Talk 15:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Univoice

edit

Contested prod. Flagrant spam; Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Article creator's only contribs are to this article and attempts to link to this article from others. VoiceOfReason 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynchburg lemonade

edit

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Kimchi.sg 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WA007

edit

Non-notable website. Article is written in the 1st person, so it's obviously a vanity article. prod was contested by original author Geoffrey Spear 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally prodded this article which was removed by the author. Non-notable company. Vanity article. Dipics 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. SliceNYC 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ditto. --Bootblack 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. -- Whpq 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with some sort of Atomic Ray Gun, violates WP:VAIN in ways I never wanted to imagine. WilyD 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain Active page is in accordance to other web firms listed on WIKI examples being 2advanced and Avenue A/Razorfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:GDWA007 (talk • contribs)
    • Neither of those pages are a policy, a guideline or even an essay. The article in question violates WP:V, WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN - these are hurdles to cross if it is to be kept, but so is WP:CORP. Until is passes all three of those, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as article fails to provide verified evidec as to why WA007 satsifies WP:CORP. And the article is blatant WP:SPAM and vanity.-- danntm T C 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, this article gives us the perception that it is used to advertise. The text is written in first person. Second, all of the links are external links. Here in Wikipedia, we use internal links, which link to other pages on our encyclopedia. Third, this article does not provide an introduction and does not provide preliminary information about the organization, an example shown here. If you believe this article could be improved to be an article fitting our requirements, I will vote "keep". This is not a vote, just a comment.--Edtalk c E 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuestionNot sure why all the hostility. Contributors will prove the importance of WA007's influence in web design and artistic movement. I understand that the article is in violation of WP:VAIN. But why are those articles stated above allowed to remain active if they are obviously are violating the same policies.--GDWA007 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is written in the first person, and is full of peacock terms about the company and its members. It is not an encyclopaedia article. Looking around for sources to see whether this company satisfies WP:CORP and an article could be written using the aforementioned guidelines, I find reams of directory entries repeating the same corporate blurb, and no other material from anyone other than the company at all. There is no mention to be found of this company outside of its own promotional material. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host, nor a soapbox for promoting companies, and self-promotion is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisified. Delete. Uncle G 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article subject does not meet WP:CORP guidelines, but more importantly it is not verified with reliable 3rd party sources.--Isotope23 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have included outside sources that are written by third parties to show actual references to the company and its principal, which now complies with the WP:CORP criteria section 1 of outside sources.--GDWA007 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, all the sources - except the last one - are interviews with or about James Begera. This makes a case perhaps for an article on Mr. Begera (or not, depending on if you view them as reliable sources, but it doesn't really meet WP:CORP because the articles would need to be focusing on WA007... not James Begera.--Isotope23 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment James Begera is WA007. Like Steve Jobs is to Apple.--GDWA007 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of the flash animations are accessible, and the other external links make no mention of this company whatsoever. We need published works that discuss this company in detail, not ones that don't even mention it at all. Since you mention Apple, please read the References, Footnotes, and Further reading sections of Apple Computer. You'll see independent magazine feature articles, news articles, and even entire books about the company. Those are the sorts of things that we are looking for. If such things don't exist for a company, then it does not belong here. Uncle G 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until all concerns are resolved. The references provided are usable according to WP:CORP. I think this article might just show some promise. Now I know that this article doesn't look that much great yet. But it is official policy to AGF. We should at least give it a few more days while trying to write a quality article.--Edtalk c E 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither "until all concerns are resolved" or "give it a few more days" are rationales for keeping. The AFD process already gives articles several days, and editors are strongly encouraged to edit articles to address any concerns brought up in the AFD discussion during that time. Please read the Guide to deletion and familiarize yourself with the process. Uncle G 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable with fewer than 18,000 google hits. Wording of article is more of an advertisment than a claim to fame or notability. will381796 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable spam, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Even the one link that isn't about James Begera links to a site where he is a judge, so the awards aren't very independent. If only the article had been about the "WA007 Rear Frame Assembly" from the Visio template, you could have got at least two references. Yomanganitalk 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow... I really thought that WA007 was noteworthy and tried to bring up as much web material as I could find. As I am not an expert on the company. Interestingly enough within the web community of designers WA007 is well known. The real shame as I mentioned before is that there are other companies that do not have citations are allowed to be kept in Wiki. The reference stated above about 2advanced, after this conversation was slated for deletion as well. And now magically its not. I'm a fan of WA007's work and their influence on popular web design can be seen everywhere. And for the person that states they cannot see the flash sites cited as references, download the plugin. It's easier than bashing everything that i write on this article. These are my last two cents. If WA007 is not wiki material then cut to the chase and delete it.. but I request of you all to reference the term "web design agency" and mark all the infidels for deletion. Because if a company WA007 has good work then others with less need to be stricken.

--GDWA007 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Franklin (soldier)

edit

non-notable combat casualty.Plus, I also find the "Personal Comments to the editor" being used as a reference highly questionable.Delete Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. – Avi 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tathagata Ray Chowdhury

edit

This person is mentioned only on Satyabrata Rai Chowdhuri's page, and appears to be his nephew. No other information is available about him. Rimi 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was orphaned, listing now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dare (2007)

edit

Procedural nom, no recommendation. Suspicion of a hoax, multiple inept attempts to nominate for deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the references are A) an IMDB link that doesn't confirm any connection to the previous 3 movies and B) a free webhosting site, which is an unreliable source. IMDB doesn't think there's a third sequel by this or any other name [19] and google results don't seem very promising. The AllMovies and IMDB links in the infobox go to the third movie, which did exist and we do have an article on. So this article should be deleted unless a reliable source emerges. --W.marsh 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this movie isn't a hoax, reliable sources for its scheduled release will appear soon enough. Right now, it's totally unverifiable. Rohirok 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. wikipediatrix 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greene's

edit

PROD removed with the comment "This show rocks and deserves to be in Wikipedia". Who knows, but I see no evidence that this meets WP:WEB. --W.marsh 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as an article about a band which makes no assertion of the notability of its subject. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.E.G.

edit

Band does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria; it appears to be a well intentioned attempt by the author to add his own band to Wikipedia. Please note that this is a new contributor (first day) so try not to WP:BITE on opinions.--Isotope23 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it is here for people to see. It should not be deleted.Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweens6591 (talk • contribs)

This coming from a guy who is against gay marriage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweens6591 (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. Xoloz 16:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Harris

edit

Current version of the article is about Wil Harris the journalist. Prior to recent edits, the article was about Wil Harris the musician, which has been moved to Wilbur roger harris. Wil the journalist appears to be non-notable, failing WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google "Wil Harris" brings back 1.9m results: Top two results are bit-tech, the next is an article on the Register, then Wil's Flickr account, then his blog, then this Wiki entry. Would dispute non-notable. User:Pinkboy 10:18, 17 August.
  • Comment: Google Wil Harris with the quotation marks and you only get 56,700 hits. Exclusion of the quotation marks would find every webpage containing "Wil" as well as every page containing the name "Harris," of which there are sure to be many. will381796 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sheer number of google hits doesn't confer notability. There are many Wil Harris's out there; just because this particular Wil Harris is notable enough to get some of the top entries doesn't make him notable in general. Can you cite specific instances that make Wil meet WP:BIO? Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point. Although there are plenty familiar with his work, I can grant you that there isn't a specific instance that he meets in terms of WPBIO. Given that, perhaps better to delete! Pinkboy 17:09, 17 August 2006.

  • Comment: Ok, thanks for your input. There's still about 4 days until this AfD expires, so if you do run across any notable references for the fellow, feel free to add them to the article or mention them here. I'm not averse to changing my opinion if some further information is dug up. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article should not be deleted because it meets item#6 of the WP:BIO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeby99 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Joeby99 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment: I assume you mean point 7, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"? If so, could you kindly point us to the multiple independent reviews or awards for his work? --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I actually was referring to the paragraph on where Notability can be determined by a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. Since "Twit" has a large fan base/cult following and Mr Harris as a regular speaker, I think maybe he fits the criteria. Joeby99
Comment: Hmm, ok that's possible; however just because "Twit" might have a large following doesn't necessarily mean that someone on the program has a large fan base him/herself. Is there any evidence anywhere (in a reliable source) that Will himself has a large fan base? --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Harris is also editor in chief of bit-tech.net which is a leading online hardware publication that ranks higher in traffic than elvis.com according to Alexa[20]

Comment: that fact doesn't necessarily make him notable. The crux of the matter is this: if Mr. Harris himself hasn't been written about in other reliable sources, then he doesn't pass notability guidelines. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larklight

edit

Crystal ball article, NN author. Prod removed by third party. -- Merope 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur roger harris

edit

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. Content was recently moved to this article from article Wil Harris. From the history of the Wil Harris article, it has been tagged for general cleanup for almost 8 months, tagged with {{importance-music}} for 2 months. No significant work has been done to improve the article. It lacks sources and any serious claims of notability, only stating "You can find more info on Wil Harris on any search engine." For what it's worth, the original article was already deleted a few times: [22]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Userfied and Speedied. – Avi 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Dews

edit

I notice it was created by a user with the same name. Article dosen't really prove notability. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ddir.org

edit

Delete ad.- CrazyRussian talk/email 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ddot the King

edit

Not sure if a blogger who only started in August 2005 is notable enough, a blogging award notwithstanding. Delete exolon 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airline Routes

edit

Not encyclopedic, this list is ever changing and if all US carriers were included, it would be completely unmanagable, and thus not provide meaningul data to our users Akradecki 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Lee

edit

Not notable. Does not meet notability test for either people or porn stars. Delete --- Hong Qi Gong 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PBM (band)

edit

College circuit and festivals only, probably NN under WP:N. Website for band notes only college venues and (mostly free) festivals, albums mostly indie compilations except for two studio albums without a label identified. Some indication that they toured in England, but no details as to who. Website lists "have shared stage with" a number of notable bands, but suppose that this refers to festival lineups rather than support acts. Fact that they were contenders on 'Americas Got Talent' doesn't help with notability inmy opinion. Richardjames444 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Timers

edit

This is a very odd article; it seems to be a list of "university basketballers of Croatian descent that have been drafted by the NBA". This could then be moved to the correct title but I don't think they even deserve their own list. --Thunderhead 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don James Alto

edit

Strong DeleteLooks like vanity; no evidence of notability provided Interestingstuffadder 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP: NO CONSENSUS. Although I did vote in this AfD, I hope my closing it won't be viewed as too far out of process, since the "conclusion" is quite clearly "no consensus", but the AfD was also withdrawn by the nominator... [23] ... if anyone regards this closure as inappropriate, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Tomertalk 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon

edit
I endorse this closure. Mangojuicetalk 07:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jahbulon was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-27. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon.
See also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jahbulon.

The article is about a little known word, supposedly used in a particularly small branch of Freemasonry as a password or recognition word. As such, it is not really encyclopedic (See WP:NOT). At one time, the article was longer... including a lot of speculation as to the word's origins and meaning. However, the version of the article with this speculation had serious issues with WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. Most of the material has been cut. Without that material, it really is little more than a dictionary definition. Blueboar 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not even a dicdef, as there is no definition of this so-called word. MSJapan 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per arguement given by Blueboar. Chtirrell 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a source of controversy and been used in quite a few of the recent big anti-Masonic tracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) - Sorry, forgot to sign. JASpencer 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that reconcile with Personally I think the Jahbulon stuff is bonkers, just as a matter of interest?ALR 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because I think that the whole thing is bonkers (and worse, a red herring) does not mean that it is not notable. Whether I think it is bonkers is largely subjective. Whether it is notable is more objective. JASpencer 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MSJapan. WegianWarrior 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ALR 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Freemason conspiracy theories. wikipediatrix 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This word refers to a relatively sophisticated and complex concept which is both notable and sourced; it's not a dicdef. IronDuke 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that most delete votes on this AfD are from users who identify as Freemasons (with the exception of wikipediatrix). While WPtrix makes a valid point (with which I neither agree nor disagree), I believe the votes of Freemason contributors on AfD, given the Masons' traditional veil of secrecy around their rituals, cannot be considered objective. No vote. Haikupoet 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Traditional veil of secrecy". my foot. Go to Amazon, or EBay, or do a search online. I think you'll find plenty of rituals. I certainly did - they're not really very secret at all. That's a misconception, and the simple fact is, if Freemason editors weren't here to make sure what was written in the Freemasonry-related articles was accurate, every article would be full of conspiracy theories and uniinformed statements, such as "Anti-Masonic ritual", which doesn't exist, and actually popped up in Jahbulon just recently, or "veil of secrecy" for that matter. MSJapan 10:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well referenced, encyclopaedic article. I'm not sure there's more we can ask. WilyD 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - assuming that the concept is as absurd as the article's critics make it out to be, it remains an attested concept that did not originate here, and was circulated elsewhere. That much is satisfactorily documented. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, Keep... we've already been through this once. As Tlöniq says, "Jabulon" is out there, like it or not. While there may be no wikipedia editors who believe in "Jabulon" [except the nominator, perhaps? wow, watch the conspiracy theories spin!!!], the fact remains that millions of Christians in the US, at the very least, have been exposed to this concept...and that alone makes it notable. Tomertalk 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, we have been through this before. However, the article is vastly different than it was at that time. I would go as far as to say that it is no longer the same article. A lot of material has been deleted due to the issues with WP:RS. As the article stands NOW, it is ripe for deletion. Blueboar 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the article has changed since the AfD was entered and there is currently an argument going on about whether a report from the Baptist Union of Scotland can be included under WP:RS can this consultation be suspended until the article is stabilised? These are the differences and this [[24]] is the content dispute. JASpencer 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JASpencer's comment goes right to the heart of the matter... Almost all of the "controversy" surounding Jahbulon can and has been removed because it comes from unreliable sources and fails WP:V. Without that "controversy" there is nothing notable or encyclopedic about the existance of the word. This is why the time has come to re-nominate it for deletion. If those who wish to keep the article could locate reliable sources to back their claims, I would agree that it would be worth keeping. Since they can not, it should be deleted. Blueboar 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for being unclear but this is not what I said. Small but substantial changes have been made to the article giving it some context as to why it is notable. We are also in the middle of a discussion as to whether Church websites are reliable sources for hosting other church's documents and wheter WP:RS is being used to remove valid information. I believe that the AfD is inappropriate at the moment. It may be appropriate later when this becomes a stable article. JASpencer 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basicly what you are saying is that we are destined to keep going in circles... someone will insert the "controversy" material with citing yet another unreliable source, someone else will delete that material per WP:RS, the article will then be renomimated for yet another AFD, and then someone will insert the "controversy" using a different unreliable source and say that the article isn't stable so should be given a third, fourth, fifth chance ... etc. etc. etc. I really don't think we should be waisting everyones time like that. Blueboar 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well no. The question is not whether the Jahbulon claims are true but whether they are notable.
There is reliable material saying that people believe that Jahbulon is a Masonic deity - Knight and deHoyos for two. They may be wrong (and I have been outed already on this page in my scepticism) but the concept is still there. This was made first time around:
The claim that Freemasons use the word "Jahbulon" or "Jabulon" as the name of a deity, and discussions about its possible etymology, seem to be attested outside of Wikipedia User:Ihcoyc
the fact that conspiracy buffs and antimasonists discuss the subject incessantly make it noteworthy, even if they're off the wall. I can see people coming to WP to verify the claims made by the conspiracy theorists and their ilk User:TShilo12 (I don't think that MSJ or you got to the heart of this objection in your replies).
Knight and Hannah have both had an effect - including in church reports. Many Christians believe that Jahbulon is either the name of a Masonic deity or else a very dubious theological construct (or in the Baptist's case both). For this reason it is notable. And for once I'd love to agree with you.
JASpencer 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that there's no reliable evidence on the anti-Masonic side to say that it exists, and clear denial on the Masonic side. So where's the article in all this? MSJapan 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point though. It's the accusation that's notable. JASpencer 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that when I posted this AFD, there was no accusation mentioned in the article. The material about accusations had been deleted due to the lack of reliable sources to back the accusation up. In essence all the article consisted of was "Royal Arch Masons may use a word called Jahbulon and Rev. Tydeman thinks it means such and such". The article had been that way for over a month with no objections or edits. In fact, the only other editor who participated in discussion on the deletions agreed that, without the accusation, the article should be deleted. Without the accusation the word Jahbulon is not notable the article is not encyclopedic. I do find it strange that no-one seemed to care about this article until an AFD nomination was made.
That said, I agree that with the accusation material included the topic is notable... if only for the existance of the controversy surrounding it. IF someone can find reliable sources to back the accusation materials, I am willing to drop the AFD nomination. And I am willing to postpone it to give you time to try and find those reliable sources. Does one more month sound fair? Blueboar 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar's right, this is now a substantially different article from the one that was nominated. No one should criticise him for bringing in an unsuitable AfD.
BB, if you want to bring it back in a month then that's fine.
JASpencer 06:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Withdrawn... for now. (admin, please let us know when the withdrawal becomes official) Blueboar 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox affiliate switches of 1994

edit

At best this is a 'graph or two in the Fox Broadcasting Company and New World Communications articles as well as a mention in the individual station articles. In addition it is in violation of the [WP:NOR]], seems to deal a bit in speculation. But wait there is more, since there is no mention of a source of any kind and also could be seen as violating WP:NPOV. There was an article like this, which may have been deleted, which linked a whole series of unrelated television affiliation switches in the 1990s together. I can't think of the name of it, but it was a whole lot of unsources assumptions as this is. Plus it reads like an opinion peice. TV Newser 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I wrote the article and I will do the best job I can to find the problems with the page and edit them so that it can stay on the site. I feel that the Fox deal to buy New World and Burnham stations is of such magnitude that it deserves its own page. Without the NFL deal, there are no station upgrades, and without the upgrades, Fox is not in the same league as ABC, CBS and NBC. Frankly, I am very surprised that someone wants to delete the page.
As for the WP:NOR, OK, TV Newser has a point. However, I have decided to unify what was already here onto a single page, so people don't have to click around from place to place. As for WP:NPOV, I simply thought it was a consensus that the deals lifted Fox to its current level. Many things back up this opinion, including the ratings of American Idol. Even 10 years ago, to have the top-rated show on American TV on a network other than ABC, CBS or NBC would have been inconceivable.
Lack of sources? I tried to make up for them by including some "see also" links. Just about the only way to access newspaper articles from 1994 is to use a paid archive service. Otherwise, the best you can do is Google some of the applicable entries and try to find sites that archive old newspaper stories and put them online.
Whoever called a WP:V on me, I don't understand why. All of this info is correct and there is no intention to defraud anyone or promote anything.
Thank you.--Desmond Hobson 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It seems as a speedbump in the history of the stations, networks, and broadcast groups involved and not something that needs its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tube Sock (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 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aide Johnson

edit

Article appears to be a vanity article; the creator and only contributor of content is User:Aidejohnson, whose only contributions are to this article. Furthermore, the subject's only notability seems to come from his association with other wrestlers; the article establishes nothing notable about him in his own right, and Google doesn't find anything for me, either. Of the 13 opponents mentioned, only 3 have articles on Wikipedia. Rob Kennedy 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Times

edit

Only linked from one article, doesn't show up in Alexa.com, and a generic Google search only turns up a few references. Most links appear to be part of a closed neighborhood of Evangelical websites. StuffOfInterest 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was boldy redirected to Germanic strong verb by me Koffieyahoo 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Germanic strong verb

edit

"This planned new article will describe the verb in Norse and in the modern Scandinavian languages, parallel to the article West Germanic strong verb." Well, that self-ref was written more than a year ago. In that time the link has been redirected to Germanic strong verb. Andrew Levine 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was fucking aye. When the nomination suggest merging, there's definitely a problem. More wastes of time; you can turn articles into redirects on your own, and you don't need to use AFD. Really. I'm serious. --SB | T 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Monkey

edit

Seems unneeded for a throw-away joke in a Futurama episode. Suggest delete or merge with The Cryonic Woman. Billpg 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medrash Shmuel yeshiva

edit

not notable 2 google hits http://www.google.com/search?q="Medrash Shmuel yeshiva"&hl=en&lr=&filter=0 PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

311 google hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q="Medrash Shmuel" --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1440 google hits (many are about the Midrash Shmuel, not about the yeshiva - but some are) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q="Midrash Shmuel" --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should this be deleted?!?! I believe you owe me an apology. And no one would agree with you--not merely because your "considerations" are meritless, but because of the motivation underlying your decision to delete this, as well. You poor form is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. You have been warned. Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)
  • Keep of course we should keep this. It is quite famous. I see no reason to delete this article. On the contrary, the more articles, the better. I am quite surprised, unpleasantly surprised, by Pinchas' actions in trying to get this article deleted. Google is NOT an absolute tool for determining notability. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-related Comment Daniel575, is the title of the article correct? Should it be "Medrash Shmuel" or "Medrash Shmuel (yeshiva)". I'm not familiar with the subject and don't feel qualified to make a decision on it's status, thought you might have some insight into the title though. In addition, I think the nominator is looking for some sources to verify it does exist, perhaps since you are familiar with the subject you could add a couple to help verify it. DrunkenSmurf 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Does every Yeshiva need an entry in Wikipedia, with a link to the Yeshiva's webpage?" Yes. We're contributing to the sum of human knowledge - yeshivas are part of that. Dev920 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. By that logic, every school that has over 300 students ought to have a Wikipedia page regardless of its notability... Unless someone can demonstrate some reason why the place is notable, I say delete it.--Meshulam 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"every school that has over 300 students ought to have a Wikipedia page" Seems like a good plan. Dev920 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PinchasC, perhaps note should be taken of the fact that Dev920 thinks every school with over 300 students in it should have a Wikipedia page. Perhaps his vote should be considered in light of his position (which is blatantly contrary to Wikipedia's policy).--Meshulam 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should note that Wikipedia policy allows any editor, regardless of their philosophy, vote and give their views. Perhaps you should also read someone's userpage before assuming they are male. Dev920 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dev. We should have an article on every school. We should have an article on every TREE in SIBERIA, for that matter. The more the better! Well, as long as the articles are of some quality, of course. We agree on that. We don't want 100 million articles all consisting of just one sentence. For the Midrash Shmuel yeshiva, we can definitely write a real article. The Jewish editors can try to find alumni who may be able to prive some more information. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, editors cannot get infomration from alumni. WP:OR. Jon513 01:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to keep. This article is decidedly not-notable in its present state. It needs to be expanded upon so as not to be anything other than an advertisement for the Baal Teshuva wing's website. At present, it should be deleted. However, Wikipedia policy (though I imagine it didn't have Yeshivot in contemplation when it wrote its rules) supports keeping articles about post-high school educational institutions. In a way, a Yeshiva is just that. I state my objection to the blanket rule that Wikipedia has adopted. But rules are rules. --Meshulam 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Delete While wikipedia does not have a clearly stated notability test for schools, the basic guildlines (outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schools) state that post-secondary school's are considered notable. Is a yeshiva, which is a location for advanced study of the Talmud, considered to be post-secondary education? If so, then keep. If not, delete for lack of notability. will381796 23:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This yeshiva is a place where those who finished high school and usually also college study. It is for those 18 years and older. Most students are around 20 to 25 years old, others are 'professional' students, who are married and spend their whole lifes learning. So I assume you'll go for a keep. I almost changed your vote accordingly, but I leave that up to you. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help. How can i get help. Anyone who looks at this agrees that PinchosC is doing this solely out of malicious intent. There must be some checks against his excesses. DavidCharlesII 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, it is a good manners and Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. Pinchas is respected editor and I do not believe that he is being malicious. The reason why some editor believe some pages sould be deleted is explained here. See also Wikipedia:Notability for a discussion on why artiles should or shouldn't be deleted. and Wikipedia:Consensus for an understanding of wikipedia's checks against excess. Jon513 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep because wikipedia tends to keep all schools. My consern is that there is a lack of notable sources about many school. I doubt that there have been any papers or newspaper articles about Medrash shmuel (or almost any yeshiva for that matter). Daniel575 mentioned above that you could ask an alumni (I know one!), but unless I am asking him to write and publish something it would violate WP:NOR. Jon513 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Midrash Shmuel is one of the most important Yeshivas in the Israeli scene. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. The article belongs in an encyclopedia, if it can be written so as to make the topic's notability apparent, but I want to be clear that I'm not endorsing DavidCharlesII's combative attitude at all--♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with numbers in the title

edit

Utterly pointless and unencyclopaedic. Survived an AfD last year here though no substantive arguments for keeping were produced. BlueValour 18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This page was not listed on AFD until the 16th August. --Tagishsimon (talk)

  • Delete Namespace usage isn't typically the motivating factor for AfD's, and practically any entry is vaguely useful in the context of things like crossword puzzles. Icewolf34 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of band names that contain numbers

edit

This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this doesn't really necessitate a list and is probably incomplete, but surely accuracy is easily verified in this case. (Eg, does the band's name have numbers in it? If so, it belongs here! If not, it doesn't.) Icewolf34 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such an article is not really needed, and it would be better suited as a category. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands with numbers in the title. Displaced Brit 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agreed, I'll submit my vote to delete. Icewolf34 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an admin close this deletion? will381796 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP WP:SNOW, no delete votes and the nom has asked to withdraw . -Doc 19:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture

edit

Article went through an AfD here, which ended on July 9th as a no consensus, but with a recognition that there was some vague agreement on a merge to Books of the Bible. This article completely fails WP:V, so I'm not sure I see the value of merging unsourced information to a sourced article. My inclination is Delete as this is unsourced, though I could live with a redirect to Books of the Bible (and for the sake of full disclosure I did redirect this article adn the redirect was reverted. --Isotope23 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and cleanup - This article contains (some) information that's not covered in Books of the Bible, and I think this article would benefit from an expert on the subject copyediting it and adding references. Furthermore, I think unilaterally changing the page to a redirect despite the no concensus from the AfD is rather bad form. --Daniel Olsen 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, make what judgments you will on my redirect, but the point still stands: This article is not verified and thus should be deleted. Besides, if you read the closer's notes, it was recognized that there was little to no consensus to keep this article in its current form. With the creator no longer editing here I figured this would be a very non-controversial redirect and would be an easy fix that would avoid having to take this through another AfD... looks like I was wrong.--Isotope23 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not sure why it's been accused of being unverifiable (I would assume any Biblical scholar could provide resources to verify it), but it nevertheless looks like a duplication of what already appears in Books of the Bible. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't call it unverifiable... I called it unverified. I guess that begs the question, how long do we leave an article sitting unverified with the idea that some person may someday come along and verify it? Personally, I have a very low threshold for allowing unverified material to sit in articles unchecked; that is they type of thing that tends to get Wikipedia into trouble. Some of it could be verified by copying over the references from Books of the Bible, but I don't see the purpose in this as it is redundant. The concept that Pseudepigrapha is Judeo-Christian scripture would be much harder to verify as, with a couple of exceptions, the Pseudepigrapha listed here is not (to the best of my knowledge) considered scriptural by any currently exisiting church. The Apocrypha is already at Books of the Bible. That just leaves the Restorationist column, which is a misnomer because Restorationist is a much wider canopy than the Mormon books listed here. Not all groups that would be classified as Restortationist accept the books listed here, so it is a not factually correct. The "Traditional Author" section could be merged to Books of the Bible if (and only if) it gets sourced.--Isotope23 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, right finally a list that doesn't look like original research and that actually does provide some information besides being a list of things. Of course, it does need some cleanup and some sources need to be added. -- Koffieyahoo 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is useful information. It shouldn't take too long to come up with references, and it would be prefereable for someone to add references rather than deleting it. Much of it does overlap Books of the Bible, but each has information that the other one doesn't have. Perhaps they could be merged. Afalbrig 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly Merge Books of the Bible with this (into a section perhaps). The format and sources need to be cleaned up, but this is a strong keep. Useful information, not readily found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and fairly complete. I do agree with Isotope23 that the column on Restorationism---which should include historical groups---is rather incomplete. Bruce 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unsourced != unsourceable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lindahl

edit

No indication of meeting WP:BIO. Closest thing to an indication of significance is probably "Greg is currently Chief Scientist of QLogic's System Interconnect Group" or his involvement in IRC. Maybe he could be mentioned, if relevant, in pages on IRC or QLogic, but I don't see enough here for a standalone article. Ned Wilbury 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of geniuses

edit

Not encylopedic, not factual, useless list. Daniel575 | (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this list is based on vague, arbitrary criteria that is not defined. This is just asking for every person on Wikipedia who ever scored over "average" on an IQ test to add their name to the list... Article does not verifiably source it's claims.--Isotope23 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Petros471 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Television

edit

A single documentry, made up of archive footage. No assertion of notability. There are 100,000's of these.Delete -Doc 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete —Mets501 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RINSE

edit

Contested Prod. Supposedly a term "adopted by many young students at Barton Court Grammar school after an older student, Edward Andrews, used it as a "put-down" to one of his fellow peers.". Fails WP:V, WP:NEO, and clearly WP:NFT. -- Fan-1967 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and redirect. Xoloz 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Stokes

edit

Non-notable person; directing a single movie does not make one notable. 568 ghits for "Francis Stokes" director. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Miss Kitty

edit

Not notable. And fails the proposed notability test for porn stars. Delete --- Hong Qi Gong 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Xoloz 16:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of child prodigies

edit

This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them defined them as fitting the definition in the article child prodigy. Furthermore I've fixed this problem.--T. Anthony 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel it may hard to judge who exactly is a child prodigy and since there is not a recognised standards agency, it is impossible to verify that these are valid and not hoaxes. Displaced Brit 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as all entries are backed up with reliable sources and are otherwise notable (i.e. they have their own article), I see no problem with this list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete similiar to the above list of genius, how can you define what a child prodigy is? I may think a child prodigy is some 13 year old who is in medical school. Another person might think that an excellent child actor qualifies as a child prodigy. This fact makes this list unmanagable. Just because the article lists people that are famous and notable does not justify the overall existance of such a list. will381796 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fair list and sourced. This one is pretty narrow of scope compared to other lists. 23skidoo 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to verify what is essentially a judgment call or inherently point of view opinion. There is no standard provided, and any standard would vary from field of endeavour to another. Any standard would be inherently subjective and possess little in the way of objective criteria. Agent 86 00:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daniel Olsen. I also wouldn't mind a disclaimer sentence at the top saying, in essence, that there are different standards for each discipline. SliceNYC 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But who would determine the standards for each individual discipline? It is totally subjective and no way that NPOV could be maintained in this type of list will381796 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All sources identified them as fitting the definition set in Child prodigy. If need be I can delete all those who started after age 11 as that's what the definition from one of the academic or media sources used. Extreme giftedness in youth, even the term "child prodigy", has been studied in academic or psychological circles. See Google scholar or the books and studies mentioned at the end of the article.--T. Anthony 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out self-promotional websites as sources, added sources that use the word "prodigy", and removed most of those who started after age 11. I think this unfairly removed a few names, like Pascal, but possibly they can be returned later. I did keep a couple writers and athletes who started at 12 or 13, but I hope this will be acceptable.--T. Anthony 06:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "definition" in Child prodigy is not a definition, it's a heuristic, which makes this whole thing list POV. For example, I would call it highly debatable if children exhibiting some language skill should be there: languages are usually picked up much easier by children. -- Koffieyahoo 07:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly these are kids who wrote in one or more dead languages. So kids pick up writing in extinct languages easily? Intriguing, on what do you base that? The definitions aren't perfect, but many things have mildly uncertain definitions. Should we delete List of unconfirmed exoplanets, List of new religious movements, or List of bisexual people as well?--T. Anthony 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any legitimate arguments for maintaining this list? It seems like the reasons against it are stronger than the arguments for it. First, the entire list is of itself completely subjective with it being impossible to create an objective definition of what a child prodigy is. Second, even if such an unsubjective definition existed (which it cannot possibly), the sources cited do not even seem to mention that these individuals are of themselves child prodigies. Just because each person has a wikipedia article, and just because each person happens to have been notable enough to be cited on a website, does not justify the complete and total lack of NPOV that this article has. I restate my stance for this article to be deleted. will381796 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could easily become a POV mess. In fact, given the difficulty of defining what a child prodigy is, and in some cases only limited information about their childhood activities, I would say it is already too POV. Robotforaday 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I created this because there was already a list of child prodigies in the article Child prodigy. I felt it was distracting from the article and others agreed. Since then the list has been heavily worked on to conform to standards in that article on the subject and, despite occasional backsliding, it remains strictly defined and well-sourced. There is even a bibliography on the topic listed at the end of the article so those interested in the topic can study it in more depth. It provides information a category can't and that a category won't because the category for this topic was deleted.--T. Anthony 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading and re-thinking about this and the history of the article, I change my opinion to weak keep. The wording of the definitions for each category, although fairly subjective, still I think are narrow enough to prove useful in determining who could be a child prodigy. Ensuring that individuals listed are truly child prodigies is going to be a long-term project. Once the stringency of who is considered a prodigy decreases, there goes the article. will381796 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, {{db-group}} refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugginthesystem

edit

Unverifiable; prod removed Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McDonnell

edit

This article is entirely unreferenced and appears to be a hoax -- if Andrew McDonnell really were an Irish politician, it would be easy to find sources in the seven months that this article has existed. John254 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Osuwebe-Fortune

edit

This article is entirely unreferenced and appears to be a hoax -- if Manuel Osuwebe-Fortune really were an Irish politician, it would be easy to find sources in the nearly seven months that this article has existed. John254 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Instructions (Lost)

edit

This episode is unconfirmed and is based on an unverified, unsourced and perhaps fake 'spoiler' circulating the internet at the moment. SergeantBolt 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a {{db-attack}} article, no redeeming features at all.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy DiEmidio

edit

garbage; hate article Benji64 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S large

edit

Non-notable musician DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 20:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetaPhase

edit

I originally tagged this with a db-band, but TruthbringerToronto came along and de-speedied it with the note “Removed CSD: probably notable” and then moved it from “True MetaPhase” to this page. Sadly, the user didn’t leave any indication of notability in his wake. That’s okay, I’m off deadline, so can do some research.

Google turns up quite a few references to MetaPhase, but mostly to the biological term. ‘“MetaPhase” drum’n’bass’ turned up about 2000 hits, but a cursory wander through the first few pages suggested that the artist is referred to on a number of forums now and again as well as on his own pages without anything resembling a notable, reliable source. Thus, verifiability appears to be missing. And then there’s WP:MUSIC, under which the artist completely fails. No charted hits, no indication of international tours, no records certified gold. Several self-released albums for download, and one through FoulPlay Records, which got about ten Google hits and no outside reference at all. I would suggest this indicates a lack of notability for the label.

All in all, I can not find any indication of notability for this artist. Delete. What do you think, sirs? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Edtalk c E 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Yanksox 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Fuglsig

edit

The article is under fifty characters in length and is so unhelpful/uninformative and of such a shocking standard it disgraces Wikipedia as an organisation and as an encyclopedia Anthony 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("2004-2006 © Emanuel Levy") non-GFDL web page, with no prejudice against a future, non-violating, article based upon the sources turned up by Captainktainer below. Uncle G 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Camp

edit

Non-notable film, article appears to be vanity peice. Prod removed from article with no reason Wildthing61476 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge, as carried out already. Petros471 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Anastasia Lowe

edit

Procederial nomination for deletion from a contested PROD. Yanksox 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Article neads substantial cleanup to comply with WP:NPOV, but doesn't deserve to be completely killed. --Daniel Olsen 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cleaned up a little. She's notable enough for me, maybe not by WP:MUSIC, but she is related to several notable musicians and the namesake of the last song by June Carter Cash. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep June Carter Cash wrote a song about her, which I think was a single. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe she should have some fame outside of who she is related to. As far as the reference to June Carter Cash singing the song about her that could be put as a footnote in a June Carter Cash discography article. If anything it appears on google that the song may be more well known than the actual individual. Results for TAL herself are links to her father-in-law's webpage and her myspace page. Finally if she is a notable singer, etc. where is her discography? If this article isn't deleted it severely needs to be rewritten to the point that half of the article doesn't contain her lineage. Jaedza 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Is the song (rather than the girl) famous enough to have its own page? If not, a bullet point on June Carter Cash is enough. Dybryd 08:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline; I'd really consider moving to June Carter Cash or Nick Lowe. Then again, given her pedigree, she'll most likely be famous soon enough if she has any talent at all. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article is merged it might be most appropriate in the Carlene Carter article since she is biologically the closest person to TAL. The way it reads is that Nick Lowe adopted TAL and is not her biological father. I think it would be a great idea and I would be willing to research the family life of Carlene Carter. According to the bio that is on the aformeantioned page she had two children of which TAL must be one of them. Oh on a side note I calculated her birth date on the basis of the fact that Carlene Carter was born on 26 Sept 1955 so we can assume that TAL was born between 26 Sept 1971 and 25 Sept 1972. It may be nice to note this on this article or the article it is merged into I don't want to put it outright because I don't know if it violates WP:NOR. Jaedza 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into either Carlene Carter or Johnny Cash family
  • Merge and redirect as per above suggestions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and merged this with Johnny Cash family, I'm not familiar with AfD procedure, but I felt that this action was the consensus, or at least uncontroversial, and this AfD is 10 days old already. Let me know on my talk page what I could have done better here. Alcuin 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TAL is a grandchild of June Carter Cash and Carl Smith and a child of Carlene Carter she has no connection to Johnny Cash biologically. This needs to be merged into Carlene Carter's article. Jaedza 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Johnny Cash adopted Carlene Carter after he married June Carter, and raised her as his daughter. There's even an anecdote in the liner notes to The Essential Johnny Cash by Nick Lowe about Cash threatening his life when Lowe suggested that Carlene and him should share a bedroom at the Cash's house (before they were married). No, they're not biologically related, but TAL is Cash's granddaughter nonetheless. Alcuin 20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. A merger always results in a redirect (to preserve page history). Petros471 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolic

edit

Dictionary definition Stlemur 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Petros471 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Championship Wrestling

edit

A non-notable indy wrestling organization, PROD tag removed by an anon user with no explanation. TJ Spyke 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable wrestlers who compete in this NN fed:[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; Userfied. — ERcheck (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOOJ

edit

Vanity page DHN 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Paint Wii

edit

There is no evidence supporting this. Absolutely no Nintendo people, at E3 or in Nintendo Power have mentioned this at all. The "release date" is passed. SPoNG has displayed a hoax. TheListUpdater 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayda

edit

appears to be very non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs)

Wasn't properly listed, AFD complete now. --- Lid 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestleflame

edit

Non-notable news site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs)

Wasn't properly listed, AFD complete now. --- Lid 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Showtime

edit

Non-notable announcer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs)

Wasn't properly listed, AFD complete now. --- Lid 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — FireFox (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2006

Funky-tech

edit

Non-notable neologism. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Hunt Wii

edit

Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, and that is all this article is and contains. - ZakuSage 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious arguments over same-sex marriage

edit

article is POV fork from same-sex marriage; creator attempted to add this article text to that article but was removed as POV there; also prod'd and deleted by article creator ju66l3r 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David McDonnell

edit

Unsourced article, written mostly by anon editors and User:Dmcdonn4 (subject??) Contested prod, possible CSD:A7, but sending to Afd for discusssion as borderline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRe (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 August 2006

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

The result was delete as advertisment. — FireFox (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2006

Scutter promotions

edit

Page is an advertisment for what looks to be a promotions company. doktorrob™ 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No notability given, Google for "scutter promotions" gets only 39 distinct hits which sorta says it all. A lot of Myspace pages. Article created by user:Scutter, lending itself to question of vanity. Tychocat 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as mistake at the request of the author and sole editor. {{db-author}} is the correct tag for this, not an AFD nomination. Uncle G 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User CBA-Patroons

edit

Template where article should be. JB82 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban lifestyle

edit

Pretty close to patent nonsense, the bits that aren't total nonsense read like an attack against the articles subject. Almost certianly can be worked into some other article as blurb or something--205.188.117.69 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was vandalised in this edit. Nominating the entire article for deletion is not the way to fix vandalism! Uncle G 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can create some citations backing up some of this information. Do articles exist describing other lifesytles (ex., the cowboy lifestyle)? I didn't find any, and this just seems to be a stub that is propogating stereotypes of urban life. will381796 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please actually look for sources yourself when discussing articles at AFD. An article is only unverifiable if it cites no sources on the subject, and your best efforts to find sources yourself have failed. It is not sufficient just to look at Wikipedia to see whether other articles exist. Indeed, the "If article X then article Y." argument is a fallacious one. Please look for sources. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears in its current form to be just a generalisation about how millions of people live- unless this can be shown to be a specific term used in a specific way in some documents, rather than just a stereotype, there's no more need for this article than for an article generalising about what it's like to live in the countryside. Robotforaday 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small amount of research using Google Scholar turns up plenty of source material on the subject of an urban lifestyle, including studies of its medical impact and the travel behaviour of people with that lifestyle. The further reading section of the article contains just a few of them. The article requires significant improvement, but the sources exist, and this is why it is a stub. Deletion is not the way to fix a stub such as this. See our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The way to fix the article, and any "mostly false" content in it, is to change the content to be verifiable, using the many sources on the subject that appear to exist, citing them as one goes. Keep. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might misunderstand me. I am sure there is a huge amount of published material on what might be termed the "urban lifestyle", just as there is a whole pile of material on what might be termed "country living". The question is whether the term refers to a generalisable phenomenon in the way that the article currently suggests it does. To add an article in which one says everything possible about what it's like to live in a city is perhaps a bit of a stretch- I would say that it either drags us into the "random collection of information" zone or, otherwise, would simply be a statement of a stereotype- for which there is no place on WP. However, if this refers to a specific term used in a specific way (I haven't yet seen any evidence that it does), then that is a different matter. Robotforaday 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also: Urban lifestyles, Urban tribe, Urban etc......., multiple articles on the same subject, none of them seem to be more than lists of sterotypes of varied lengths. Not to mention, if anything, this article has gotten worse since it's been improved, the vandalised version might actually have been better than the current one--205.188.117.74 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,172.129.200.208 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rebundled, then speedy deleted as R1 (dangling redirect). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereokiller.com

edit

Redirect was for an article that was purposely here for spamming. sharpdust 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StereoKiller and StereoKiller.com

edit

Reads like an advert. Seems like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. sharpdust 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wasn't this posted here yesterday? Is there a policy on how often these things should be reposted here? Not sure...just seems like there should be. will381796 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the history log it only shows this AfD. There was an earlier version of this article with a different spelling (lower case k) that was speedy deleted in May, but that wouldn't prevent this one from being AfD. If an AfD decision is to delete and someone re-created the article then it can be speedy deleted as a repost {{db-repost}}Brian 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - Spam. Artw 06:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is not an advertisment. if purevolume, hxcmp3 and myspace can have pages here, why can't stereokiller. it's full of relevant information and is a highly popular website. do not delete it. if you delete this, then by all means you would be hypocrites to not delete the pages for purevolume and hxcmp3, it would only be fair. just because *you* haven't heard of the site doesn't mean a ton of other people haven't. Cbrickhouse 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
  • I live on this site, as well as MANY of THOUSAND other users... THIS SITE IS THE SHIT!!! This is not spam.. we are all sexy bitches and this is our main wave of communication for band shows, news, and the BEST site for love sex advice... This site has it all, mainly users are 15-35. VERY organized and easy to search for people around your area and many others. Profiles can have LOTS of pictures, and you can rate other users!!!! I WOULD DIE WITHOUT THIS SITE!!! THANK YOU CBRICKHOUSE!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE BEST!

<3 LynzieBeBe — Possible single purpose account: Lynziebebe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • OMG, glad I saw this here. This site is the so hot and I just searched for locals in my area and saw some people I havent seen in years! thanks Wikipedia!!!! — Possible single purpose account: SexyDcups (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • This site shouldn't even be called a site. It is a HUGE COMMUNITY of people. This site is full of TONS of information and it is definatly one of the hottest things on the interent. It is a very useful site for all areas of the country. To delete it would be suicide. -DPancoast; user since 2002. — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • I hardly think the description reads like an advertisement, and with the site holding 135,000 member profiles and counting, it seems to advertise itself just fine. Stereokiller is my personal resource for all things music, including news, band profiles and downloads. Not to mention a massive online community I can share my love of music with. The site features member profiles from all four corners of the world. It rules, that is all. - Adam. 204.101.241.2 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable website (which is why it's different from, for example, MySpace); Alexa rating below 282,000. NawlinWiki 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALEXA IS TRASH. It is the worst way possible to rank websites. When I installed their crap toolbar ages ago, i watched my site go to the top 10,000 within days. Go by our statistics - 5,000,000 message board posts, 130,000 members, and 350,000 sessions a day. Perhaps you should take some time to do some research before you make an ass out of yourself again. ALSO - the site uses two domain names - so search for both on alexa and you will see that it's a completely different story. Search for pahardcore.com AND stereokiller.com and do some averaging. Cbrickhouse 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Failing to do so can result in being blocked from Wikipedia. Srose (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit-conflicted comment First of all, no personal attacks. NawlinWiki was stating a very rational viewpoint, which is quite different than "mak[ing] an ass out of [him]self". Second of all, pahardcore.com has an Alexa rank of 297,961; thus, on average, these two sites would have a ranking of around 290,000, and even if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000. That certainly helps to confirm a lack of importance. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement. Alexa rank of 282,210. A grand total of Seventy-one unique Google hits. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you're basing your opinions on alexa's ranking system is completely retarded. Seriously. If everyone that used my message boards downloaded their toolbar, we would see both domains rise to the top 10,000, which is where it once was. And alexa doesn't even support Firefox... which about 20% of my users use. Cbrickhouse 13:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For proof of what I speak of: view our rankings from two years ago. You will see we almost go into the top 5,000. This was because I had all my users download a personalised toolbar. A lot of the people stopped using the toolbar because they use BETTER toolbars, like googles. If google ranked websites I guarantee that we would have great rankings.

    And as for our "unique google hits" - you're basing that on the domain name stereokiller.com, which has only been active for a few years. Search in google for pahardcore.com and you will have much different results.

    Your math/reasoning skills are not very good. It would *not* be an actual average of the two divided by the total of both. It would be much lower if the site used one domain name. Probably around 100,000. Because it's tracking both as seperate websites, it lowers the rankings of both instead of as one site.

    • First off, I mentioned above that if you combined the rankings, they still wouldn't be much higher; as I stated, "if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000." Second, and once again, please try to conform to WP:CIVIL. Finally, I actually got a laugh out of your claim that my math skills are subpar, seeing as I had perfect scores on the math SAT I and SAT IIc. But that's irrelevant; as someone mentions below, I'd be all for sprotecting this discussion, or simply speedying the article right now (as all 8 registered users who have made their opinions known have moved for deletion anyway, while only single purpose accounts have argued for keeping the article). -- Kicking222 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Before I go into my reasoning for deletion, let me say this: saying incivil and rude things ("your math/reasoning skills are not very good", "completely retarded", etc) will not help your case in the least and may in fact result in a block or ban. I believe this article should be deleted because it does not satisfy the guideline of WP:WEB and because it's apparently not very well known - I can find no news article or non-trivial publications on this website. Srose (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I'm going to be un-civil - you people have not listened to a word I've said. Our google pagerank for pahardcore.com is 5/10 and stereokiller.com 4/10 - which is just as good as some other sites I've seen listed here. If you're going to ban me then just do it already. I've done nothing other than to try and get a simple page for my site here, not an advertisement, but because it is an important resource for music and IS widely used, despite what you have illogically deducted. But I ask that if you delete my then delete the like sites as well. Then at least you would have done something right today. Cbrickhouse 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT to see our reasoning for deleting your article. If other articles seem to fail to qualify for articles under the same criteria yours may be deleted for, please feel free to list them for deletion following the instructions on WP:AFD. Srose (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well based on your criteria then, it IS still notable. Our CD reviews are cited on many popular band's websites (some of these bands listed on wiki). I can compile a list if you like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete and semi-protect this discussion please. This article fails WP:V, and in kind WP:OR. It reads like and Advert as well. It may be a WP:VANITY article as well as Cbrickhouse is seemingly claiming ownership of the site. I would remind Cbrickhouse that Blogs, Personal Websites and other trivial sources are not acceptable for citing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • whatever you say buddy. it's obvious i'm not going to ever win this argument. thanks for ignoring the facts, and when my site is up to a million members i guess you'll still be calling it "non-notable". thanks for nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs)
  • here is a listing of some of our citations.
  • I could list more too. If you search for pahardcore.com on google you et this.

    Results 1-10 of about 67,100 for "pahardcore.com". (0.18 seconds) Cbrickhouse 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment These still do not pass WP:V or WP:RS criteria. And comments made like this on that websites discussion boards asking users there to come here and make accounts to contest this, show that you are trying to disrupt this AfD. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I see that Cbrickhouse is using his forum to incite his members to bombard wiki. He has posted a link leading directly to this AfD page. His aim may not be to disrupt, but he is obviously motivated by wanting to severely improve his G-rank. The result is that there could be hundreds of new accounts which will not be used hereafter, and in the meantime plenty if vicious jibes about censorship and fascism from people who don't understand and don't want to understand Wiki's fundamental precepts. Ohconfucius 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non notable web site. Does not meet WP:WEB. Reads as advertizing. No assertion of notability within the article. No sources to support verification of notability. Brian 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - Spam obnoxious puppetry above comments.Wickethewok 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a page for purevolume.com, there is no reason why there should not be one for stereokiller.com as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.235.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-17 15:40:08
  • Delete Pure spam.--KojiDude 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you guys really do have nothing better to do, do you? — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • WikiPedia sounds like it may be owned by newscorp. Is that why you allow myspace on here and not another personal networking site? And as for the Alexa/google rating you guys have plenty of cliff claven like facts on here that are super low on the google scale.--Brokenskull 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)BrokenSkull[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Prolog 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my question. I read in your guidelines to the affect that someone other than the owner of the site has to post the content that he was going for here. So if someone else posted it and was able to bring out the sources, would there be a possibility of it being kept despite the fact that this whole charade went down today?{unsigned|204.8.203.16}}
  • Delete. I like spam, but only in a sandwich. Soo 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentseems like a legitimate website. i don't see the problem with keeping it.70.91.21.146 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Rich[reply]
    • Reply To Comment Please view the listed complaints against the article and then refute them with a reasoning beyond that it is a legitimate website. My snakes (venomous and non-venomous) and scorpians have a ligitimate website...that doesn't make them Wikipedia worthy beyond my userpage--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumbkidscruft. Danny Lilithborne 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where can I view these complaints?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs)
  • I realize that this website has certain guidelines/ways to decide whether or not a website is allowed to be listed on Wikipedia and that Stereokiller doesn't currently meet the Alexa rating standard. I also realize that Brickhouse may have offended/upset more than a few people on here, making everyone even more biased against the site. However, that was merely because he doesn't understand why a website that has so many users and so many bands isn't eligible for this website. Have all of you checked the site out yourself? It isn't just a message board. There are thousands of CD reviews on there, mp3s, and listings for shows all around the country, as well as, over a million users. Maybe when it was started in 97, it was just a bunch of our friends messing around on a website, but it has grown and has become ridiculously widespread over the past 10 years. Brickhouse could no longer even keep the old name (PaHardcore), because it was more than obvious that it wasn't just us southeastern PA kids anymore. The users on Stereokiller are from all over the world. The website helps up and coming bands get wide exposure, much like MySpace does. I hope you can at least take that into consideration. Thanks. -Jessclancy 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jess.[reply]
    • 'Jess, while I can respect that completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so you understand. The Alexia rating isn't really used as a guideline (and is often cited for it's inaccuracy. I personally believe it should be done away with), and the Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims. It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article falls into being an advertisment per a statement made by a forum member. It also fails to meet wikipedia's website policy. I hope this helps you to understand. Basicly this fails WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB and WP:RS --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam -- Whpq 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per spam. We don't need garbage like this on Wikipedia regardless of how "popular" this website is. :: Colin Keigher 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the service is as popular as it and it's supporters claim, then I will change my position only after the article contains citations to reliable sources that allow it satisfy the criteria put forth in Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of websites. The article must also not sound like an advertisement and must be neutral.-- danntm T C 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously an advertisement for a non-notable website. Recommend semi-ptotection of AfD due to "troll attack". Tokakeke 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian and danntm. --Wafulz 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentthis site is NOT spam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwedanced (talk • contribs) — Andwedanced (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • CommentNo one is saying the SITE is spam. We are saying that article sounds like and advertisment. The term we use is 'spamvertisment' or 'spam' to refer to the article. Please see the above arguements --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I would like to say that I understand and respect why you have these guidelines and this screening process. I neglected to mention that in my previous post. Although I just created my account today, I frequent this website quite often when researching my college term papers (and of course, I cite the information and give credit where it is due). Therefore, I completely understand that it is important to your credibility as a website and information provider to make sure that your hosted websites are legitimate. I also appreciate the time you took to be very specific when replying to my first post even though you already did it multiple times on this page and are probably tired of doing it. With that being said (I know, there is always a but), I think that with the variety of different services/information that different sites have to offer, maybe some of the guidelines should be different for certain types of websites. Stereokiller is much different than a site where, for example, someone has dedicated to American History. Obviously, if you are hosting that man's website, you must be sure that it is legit and the information is accurate, and that it is not just some wierdo posting from his basement who decides he wants to rewrite American History and see what internet sucker believes it. Stereokiller, on the other hand, really helps give new and up and coming bands exposure. The mp3s that are hosted are provided to the user for free, so Brickhouse is not doing this in order to have more people paying him for downloads of songs. Also, I understand why you are looking for notable sources/articles to verify that Stereokiller is a credible website for reasons that I mentioned earlier. However, I think that is a little less important than it is for the american history type website I described above, because the bands choose to host themselves. Brickhouse can't be falsely representing the bands, because they put the information about them up themselves. Also, I doubt there are many articles, if any at all, written about Stereokiller, not because it is a non-credible website, but because it represents the underground hardcore scene, which is much less popular than a website that is centered around huge pop-stars like Justin Timberlake or Kelly Clarkson. As far as not wanting to host a website with biased information, I understand that as well. The only information that I could see to be considered biased on the website would be the reviews, but that's to be expected, right? A review is simply one person giving their opinion about what they are reviewing. If they don't like the music, it gets a bad review, much like if Roger Ebert doesn't like a movie, it gets a bad review. That does not mean that Ebert is not a credible source for movie reviews, nor that the movie is techinically awful, it is just his opinion. As far as the article Brickhouse posted about it sounding like an advertisement, I read Pure Volume's post and found them to be quite similar. I realize that PureVolume probably meets the credible article requirement because it is a much bigger website, but it had to start somewhere, right? I realize this was quite a long-winded post, and I'm not sure if you are even going to bother reading it. I also realize that you probably could care less about bending the rules for me because, like I said before, I understand why you have the rules to begin with, and also because I'm sure you just think that I am some random girl on the internet defending her friend and his website. Haha, but I've never been one to not voice my opinion, so you got it whether you care to read it or not. Once again, thanks for taking the time to at least read my response, and also thank you for the countless amount of term papers this website has helped me with. -Jess. Jessclancy 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that. You are on the way to understanding our purpose here. It isn't to write an article about every web site in existence. Projects such as Wikidweb have that goal. Our goal is to write an encyclopaedia, that readers can trust because they can independently verify everything in it should they choose to, that does not contain original research (i.e. completely idiosyncratic viewpoints or new ideas, syntheses, and analyses that haven't been through a process of publication, fact checking, and peer review outside of Wikipedia), and that espouses no point of view in any debates. Our inclusion criteria such as WP:WEB exist, in large part, so that Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia and doesn't turn into a World Wide Web directory. This is why arguments such as "Web site X has an article. We should, too!" will always fail. We also don't include and exclude subjects based upon their personal importance to individual Wikipedia editors. If we used subjective criteria like that, Wikipedia would be a complete mess. We don't include or exclude web sites from having articles based upon thier credibility (although we most definitely do exclude external links to web sites based upon their credibility, see Wikipedia:External links). We include or exclude web sites according to WP:WEB. The way to argue that a subject should have an encyclopaedia article is to cite sources showing that it has been the subject of serious, independent, fact-checked, and peer-reviewed discussion outside of Wikipedia.

      Remember when writing your term papers that it is poor work to cite an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is merely a tool that condenses and summarizes the knowledge, and shows readers where the actual reading material is. If there is no actual reading material about a web site, then there shouldn't be an encyclopaedia article on it. Uncle G 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Youtube.com has 94,500 incoming links, Purevolume.com has 5,970, and Stereokiller.com has 12, of which 4 unique. I don't find the article particularly NPOV, but I am not convinced it has a place within Wiki. My vote is Delete, obviously. Ohconfucius 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Reads like spam, nn site. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ohconfucius has said everything, I was thinking and all though I am no expert on the matter, I feel this article has no place on Wikipedia and does not meet the guidelines. J.J.Sagnella 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to have to go to the train station to look in the paper or a record shop for concert listings. Not anymore. Thanks to stereokiller. The people that book shows use this site to post dates and flyers. Plus everyone is always talking about music, i've learned alot about hardcore music/emo music/heavy music/metal music/Screamo ain't real!/Punk Rock Music/Hip Hop/Indie Rock Music. Thanks Mr. Brickhouse! Keep it going, Brah! Don't let the white man keep you down!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.49.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18 11:16:31
  • Speedy delete Advertisement. LoomisSimmons 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant spam. Pathlessdesert 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Srose and others. 1ne 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door

edit

Unencyclopedic. Has been copied to http://en.nintendo.wikia.com; however, the images also need to be copied, and I recommend that this happen before the deletion. (Once the images have been copied, most of them can also be deleted.) NeonMerlin 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Facts

edit

Not every internet meme has to have an article, not to mention this article is written from the rather unique perspective of "list things people on the internet made up"--205.188.116.6 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm inclined to disagree- I don't see it as a list at all. It was a pretty notable fad that swept at least all of North America, and it made it to pretty much every news/talk/radio show on the continent. While it could use some sourcing on the background, I think it's fine otherwise. --Wafulz 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The meme surely has died lately, and I vote to keep if the artical can be improved somehow. 200.255.137.221 05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An example of amusing bizarre cultural phenomenons. There's Chuck Norris T-shirts and silly subculture because of this event.
  • Keep I vote this to avoid a roundhouse kick to the face. Anomo 07:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong keep. It's a notable internet meme anyway, but this one got a ton of media mentions on top of that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very popular, in many forms of formal media. ConnertheCat 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't made up. As you can see it has a lot of mainstream media coverage, and is even still a running joke on current comedy programmes. It was even mentioned on the Daily Show recently.Tomservo3000 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP: Isn't Wikipedia supposed to document this kind of stuff. 20 years from now, this will become a signature fad of the 2000s decade. I believe that if this is deleted it will be forgotten along with the other internet meme articles that were deleted. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this article should be documented. (Tigerghost 18:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep: True, there are many internet memes but this is especially notable for its popularity, spread and constant reappearance all around the world, not to mention the widespread coverage it has received in written and online press. AdamDobay 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Wikipedia doesn't keep Chuck Norris Facts, Chuck Norris facts keep Wikipedia. FireSpike 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! Don't let Chuck find out you were going to delete this. If he does, A roundhouse will surely follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.91.92.57 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: For all the above reasons. What does Wikipedia possibly gain by deleting it? I wanted to know more about this topic today and I was glad this article was there. --spiralhighway 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article was useful for me. This stupid chuck norris stuff is alredy a phenomenom, I think it deserves an article for itself, and that it should be expanded, it's still small.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_16&oldid=1081094314"