Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 25 December 27 >

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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Polizei

edit
Team Polizei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kimchi.sg 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Eun Hye

edit
Yoon Eun Hye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

no sources to prove this girl is notable. 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orlggo (talk • contribs).

Also to note that the only delete voter has only 5 edits. — Arjun 01:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy G4 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 02:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diddymonster

edit
Diddymonster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Userfied and deleted on Dec 18. This seems to be a new and slightly expanded version, but still looks like a nonexistent company. Claims to have made movies SOMTHING OR OTHER, which is a "page in construction" about a "movie in process". (Google has almost no hits for "diddymonster animation") Aleph-4 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 15:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solveig Fiske

edit
Solveig Fiske (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The creator of this article removed the speedy tag inserted as an A7 CSD. The creator then reported the tagging Editor in AN/I for vandalism Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mindless_deletionism. In order to take the heat out of the discussion I am listing this as AFD as restoring the speedy tag will undoubtedly create more debate then is necessary. Effectively an administrative listing but I'm not entirely sure that every Bishop in the world is notable. Spartaz 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I think we have a consensus now. If someone could come along and close this we can all move on with our lives. --Spartaz 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am obviously satisfied with the general consensus, my general position is that AFDs should remain open for the standard period of time. For one thing, the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion hasn't had a chance to vote yet. --Leifern 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in the case of questionable articles that could go either way, I lean on the side of "does someone care enough to write an article" side. There's no point in keeping a stub for three years that nobody is ever going to touch, but if someone is willing to write an article on it ... this person seems to be a significant individual in the national church of Norway, so keep. BigDT 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After all she is a bishop. And she passes WP:BIO; there are articles about her in important newspapers in Norway: like this one. TSO1D 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the standard in WP:BIO is "multiple non-trivial published works". A quick google throws up what are obviously multiple reports of her appointment as bishop. (The fact that I can't read Norwegian is irrelevant.) Bucketsofg 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and please, deletionists, think before you nominate. --Leifern 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am happy to discuss my characterization of the speedy delete nomination as "vandalism," but I have deliberately not brought that into the discussion here, partly as conciliatory move, and partly to keep the vote clean. I will write a brief explanation at User talk:Leifern, and we can take it from there. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, but it seems that making one accusation to counter another does little to get me - or anyone else - out of the trenches. --Leifern 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Judging by searches, appears to be known only in Norway. Also, appointment as Bishop doesn't seem to me to give sufficient notability--she is the Bishop of a town of 27,000. IMO, this can be covered sufficiently in other Wikipedias. The other Wikipedia article doesn't seem to cite much in the way of references either. This page is extremely light on the "multiple, non-trivial independent published works" as well. --Jackhorkheimer 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diocese of Hamar is one of 11 dioceses of the Church of Norway and covers one of the most populous areas of the country - far more than the 27,000 who live in the seat of the diocese, namely Hamar. And by your standard of "only being known in Norway," should we delete articles about people who are only known in the United Kingdom, Canada, or the U.S.? --Leifern 03:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:29Z

Earth-349

edit
Earth-349 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Promotion for a non-notable fictional universe. The article creator's name is the same as the name of the author of these works. FreplySpang 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me see: this should be deleted because it's not "notable" enough? Well, sorry I wasted your time, folks: I didn't know Wikipedia had already become so elitist. -- Dr. Psycho (the one and only)

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Fabio Moro. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:27Z

Fabio moro

edit
Fabio moro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nice work, but writing programs (even if they rip classic computer games) seems to be entirely non-notable. The article was written by User: Fabio Moro, I suggested "userfy" a few days ago. -- Note: The article Alley Cat 2 had almost the same text, I made it into a redirect to this article. Aleph-4 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Internet privacy, article may now be rewritten, but more likely just add content to the redirect target. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:12Z

Digital trail

edit
Digital trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A neologism referring to technological paranoia. Despite numerous references, the article still reads like a synthesis of information and speculation that runs afoul of WP:NOR. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite The concept itself is real, and this particular term does have established usage (For example, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Internet" and plenty more [4]. Still, the article itself could use a fair bit of work, so I do agree it should be rewritten. Possibly redirected if there's an already existing page that will serve the purpose better. FrozenPurpleCube 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. As an expression this is of passing importance. Mostly this is already covered in e.g. internet privacy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support that for a redirect then? FrozenPurpleCube 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, A7. --Fang Aili talk 01:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Lazarus

edit
Scarlet Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete unless further information is brought forth. Some notability is asserted in the article, but Scarlet Lazarus has no IMDB.com profile, 8 Ghits (none are relevant), and there is no evidence that the film Cabbage Stew that she appeared in is notable or even exists. Furthermore (and strangely enough), the article was created by new user CabbageLettuce, whose only contribution is this article. Fabricationary 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 05:23Z

Gun fetish

edit
Gun fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed; procedural nomination. The article itself is a good candidate for deletion, though; no sources and almost totally speculative. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment; As far as I know CSD:G1 won't work here as poor writing is specifically excluded. Nonsense does not apply since there is an obvious point to the article, it's just articulated VERY poorly. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Jannali, New South Wales. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:16Z

Jannali East Public School

edit
Jannali East Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

School with no assertion of notability and insufficient independent reliable sources. (I'm uncertain whether a private member statement by a legislator qualifies, but I'm willing to accept it -- it's still only one source, though.) Does not meet WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. The school survived a second AfD over a month ago, partly because it was over 50 years old (a criterion which has since been removed from WP:SCHOOLS), and partly because its nominator was determined to be a vandal -- circumstances I think warrant another discussion. Its first VfD was a year and a half before that. Article has been tagged for cleanup since the previous discussion, but no editing has been done. Proposed a merge and redirect first per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLS3, and WP:LOCAL, but it was declined, so am bringing it here. Shimeru 01:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete No asserted notability of any kind. Fails any set of school criteria. Only 115 total and 62 unique Google hits, including mirrors, and most of the sites that aren't mirrors are directory listings. -- Kicking222 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment To be fair, the age criterion has not been completely removed from WP:SCHOOLS. However, a school must be distinctive due to its age, and 50 years is in no way distinctive. -- Kicking222 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it seems to be non-notable. Jyothisingh 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Doesn't deserve deletion, does have proof that it exists. GCFreak2 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Unremarkable school. MER-C 07:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Terence Ong 09:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, or merge somewhere. WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3 state that schools that don't meet its criteria should be merged somewhere (which is fine with me), not deleted anyway, so the rationale for deletion isn't entirely valid. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about a significant institution. Nathanian 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JROBBO 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - yet again, this is being used as a substitute for Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and there is no valid rationale for deletion. There have already been two AfDs on this article, one very recently, and I'm tired of articles being renominated just because it's to a particular user's fancy to delete a certain type of article this week, or because they can't be bothered doing some research and improving the article themselves, or because they disagree with the previous outcomes, so they just keep nominating the article until it goes their way. That's not the way to do things on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other tags to cover those sorts of situations, so why aren't they being used? As I said in the last AfD, there are some significant articles on a newspaper database that I found about the school, such as it being caught up in an education funding dispute in the early 2000s under Bob Carr's Government, but no one seems to take any notice of that - everyone uses the Google search and that's it. There are plenty of print articles - why doesn't anyone look for them? It's because people can't be bothered doing any work - it takes far longer to write an article than to delete it, but the deletionists get impatient and say that if we can't get a good enough article in three or so weeks, then it should go - too bad for anyone who's done any significant work on the article. And to be honest, although I would have liked to improve the article, I haven't had time, so I'm annoyed that yet again, rather than anyone doing some work on the article, it just gets nominated for deletion because no one understands that people need time to improve articles. And while the nominator claims that he tried a merge tag, in truth he suggested that we merge the article to the local school district, and if he had read my edit summary when I got rid of that suggestion, he would know that I got rid of the merge tag as Australia does NOT have school districts, and so it's impossible to merge the article to such a thing. I have a compromise though - I'm prepared to merge this to the local suburb article (Jannali, New South Wales) (which is a sensible and realistic merge proposal, as opposed to the last one). Let's stop this silly and ridiculous debate, and I'll put in the references needed to make the section of the Jannali East article on the school a good one. Alright? JROBBO 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Shimeru stated in the nom, many of the keep !votes in the AfD seven weeks ago were solely based on the nominator being an spa. Without those !votes, there was much more of a consensus. -- Kicking222 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag says "school district or locality," but I can see how that might be missed. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in favor of a merge/redirect (or expansion from reliable sources, if you have the time now to do that). I don't particularly care whether we do or don't have an article on the school -- only that, if we do, it's one that shows why the school is notable, with reference to multiple independent sources, like we'd expect of practically any other article. This one was first written in May 2005 -- that's a bit more than three weeks to wait for sourcing. But a merge is a good compromise until a sourced article can be written, and that approach seems to be building consensus. Shimeru 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - DXRAW 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not make any assertion of notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Smerge per recommendation below. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The likelihood of this becoming a significant article is pretty small, considering the school has 175 students. The article in its present state makes no assertion of notability, and frankly, I can't see how it ever will. The fact that it is a school does not make it instantly notable. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a school article is not strong in the beginning, chances are good it will never improve. This article does nothing to expalin why this school should be worthy of note. Denni talk 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Repeat nomming here is getting rediculous.. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When an article is kept in part because people hoped that it might improve, that presupposes that the article can be renominated if it does not improve. When an article is kept in part because of defects in the nomination, that should be no barrier to a proper nomination. In theory, the closing admin should ignore WP:ILIKEIT keep votes, but sometimes they don't, and those decisions should not be binding. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this meets WP:SCHOOLS as proposed and is verifiable through reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion has been provided. Silensor 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete - still doesnt meet the proposed WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLS3 criterias in its current form. Also, the criterion over whether it should be kept on how old the school is or not should be debated at its related school project pages. It's had enough time to improve and to find sources since its last 2 AFDs, and as it stands at the moment, it looks very shaky. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closing moderator - if User:Shimeru is not going to withdraw the nomination as he says he will, can this please be userfied to me so I can merge what's notable into the Jannali article? JROBBO 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done it yet - but I don't want the page deleted and the sources of information to be not available, so as to prevent me from merging it properly. JROBBO 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Kenosha Unified School District. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bullen Middle School

edit
John Bullen Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable school, as per WP:SCHOOL —Steven G. Johnson 01:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by admin Canadian-Bacon ((CSD G1) Patent Nonsense). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cronisaur

edit
Cronisaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy Delete, please. Patent nonsense. Gets zero, zip, zilch Google hits. Note the reference to marijuana in the article. Hu 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 09:30Z

Perfect Country Western Song

edit
Perfect Country Western Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A neologism. Not encyclopaedic; trivia. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Akihabara 01:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:17Z

RAM Raider

edit
RAM Raider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN blog, WP:WEB, WP:V - crz crztalk 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete

From the "notability" criteria:

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

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

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles"

The RAM Raider has PRINT articles published in the mainstream and specialist British gaming press. The RAM Raider is also extremely well known in the UK - telephone any UK games magazine and ask if they've heard of the author. The website is also referred to in this wiki entry as a "publication of note." A Google search for "RAM Raider" will also reveal how well known the site and author are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skizm (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:19Z

The UC Merced Library

edit
The UC Merced Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page for the UC Merced Library consists of material that was removed from the original UC Merced Wikipedia page. I doubt that there's really enough information or noteriety to warrant a seperate article on the University's library when sufficient information is already covered on the UC Merced page. Thus, unless there are any good reasons to keep this article as is, or any edits with sources to verify its noteriety, I propose it be deleted. TheLetterM 02:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Simple Truth. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:19Z

My Love for You

edit
My Love for You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This song is not notable. The only claim to fame is that it's video was the "first 3D animated music video" from India. Even this is not verified. I could find only one link[5] which says that "Anuj Nair's album Simple Truth puts forward a claim to fame. No, it's nothing to do with the music; rather, it claims to be India's first 3-D animated music video." I am from India and I don't think that this song was popular. The only claim to notability is that it was a 3D animated music video -- this doesn't make the song notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Fairly clear keep consensus; nomination was withdrawn by nominator as well. Closing admin encourages the interested parties to add sources where needed. --Fang Aili talk 06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks

edit
List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of the same nature:

Delete per consensus reached on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces. --Nyp 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that Nyp (talk · contribs) has very few edits to his name and should probably not be indulging in AfDs at this time. IZAK 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that Nyp (I) have been contributing since September this year. --Nyp 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - this is merely implementing that consensus. (Side note: My personal belief is that these articles should be kept in some form, since they're a useful method of cataloguing information. But the most important thing on Wikipedia is consistency. If the previous consensus says that a one-sided list is inherently POV, all these lists need to go. If a new consensus is reached, saying these lists are allowed as long as they don't use terms like "massacre", then the deleted list should be revived, and edited to the exact same standards. Consistency above all else.) Quack 688 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Consistency is important which is also why there is admin discretion and AfD is not a vote. That said, we should not overinterpret it. X was deleted so Y is deleted too is not an automatic process, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Regarding this specific AfD I would say that the previous AfD more than anything established that if these things are already well-covered there is no need for these lists. They (like most lists...) add nothing important to Wikipedia. Timelines in the main article are much etter suited for this kind of thing. The POV naming is easy to deal with but they are still just lists of things we already covered in other articles. The problem of lists being POV because they only contain attacks comitted by one party in the conflict could have been easily dealt with by merging the lists. So the POV argument really isn't reason for deletion, the fact that lists are a horrible way of doing this kind of thing is a valid reason for deletion, POV or not. MartinDK 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "X was deleted so Y is deleted too is not an automatic process, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis." Agreed. We need to examine the reason why X was deleted. If it can be shown that Y doesn't have this problem, the original consensus doesn't apply. In this case, the Israeli list was deleted because it was decided that a list of only one side's attacks (whether or not the term "massacre" is used) is inherently POV. Some of these articles use the term "massacre", some don't, but at their core, they are all lists of one side's attacks. Therefore, I believe that, whether or not they're kept or deleted, all these articles need to be treated the same way. Quack 688 09:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Absolutely true. These lists are an inherently bad idea and same line of reasoning applies as on the other AfD. My only additional point is that even if the one-sided aspect is removed by merging all these lists the fact that it is a list makes it an inferior way of dealing with this since in this case a timeline in the main article would be much better and less prone to POV arguments. Sorry if my arguments got mixed together, I totally agree with you. MartinDK 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Quack 688 --khello 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Rationale is supposed to be "Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature." I find that not to be the case at all. Nomination is some kind of exercise in WP:POINT in order to achieve parity between two AfDs. Independent third party reliable sources could be easily adduced to justify each entry on each list. To the extent this cannot be done, the lists should be trimmed, but under no circumstances does this justify deletion. I find the entire AfD bizarre. - crz crztalk 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hard to assume good faith on this AFD, smacks of WP:POINT. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this violates WP:POINT ... where? Instead of referring to guidelines back and forth while disregarding from the presented arguments, state your arguments why the lists should be kept. A list of Israeli attacks was deleted. Articles of the very same kind that are listing attacks by the other side of the conflict are now being defended. See this by SlimVirgin in the AfD of the Israeli attacks article. Here she assumes the contrary position. I might not be a person with much temper, but such obvious unfairness is ridiculous. --Nyp 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A list of Israeli attacks was deleted" - There's the POINT. As to the other AfD, deletion was not the answer there. I think it was a crappy outcome and would have voted to keep and cleanup (save for the POV fork angle, which is not present here). - crz crztalk 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So would the correct action I should have taken been a deletion review of the other article instead? In my eyes that would have caused the NPOV of the Wikipedia to be at the whim of a few persons that I from what I have seen most likely would have endorsed the deletion. --Nyp 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't know, but certainly not to augment one crappy outcome with another - crz crztalk 20:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If even an admin is unsure about the proper action to take, a fairly new Wikipedia contributor cannot be expected to take the 'right' action either. Regardless of that, my point still stands. Does anyone even argue against that deleting lists of only one side's actions in a conflict is NPOV? Should this AfD fail I will take the other article to a deletion review, as I in neither way can see me being at fault. These articles are all of the same nature. Either they all should be kept, or they all should be deleted. Anything else is in conflict with the trustworthiness of the Wikipedia. --Nyp 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment yeah you should have taken it to deletion review... only the massive consensus on that AfD meant that you wouldn't have achieved anything. As I said above I don't think the problem here is POV at all... whatever POV problems there might be with these lists are easily overcomed. What should happen is that the way the information is presented should be improved, possibly by integrating the information into relevant articles. The problem now, as forseen, is that this AfD has gone from a debate that could have led to an improvement of Wikipedia without loss of valuable information to a heated debate with no apparent possibility of a comprimise. I would have abstained from AfD'ing this at all and worked on getting this integrated into the relevant articles if possible. I change my recomendation to abstain. MartinDK 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But wait: I have just gone through the deleted stuff and most all of it is already contained in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. That was a POV fork AfD. These are not POV forks of anything (if they are, let me know). These cases are not the same. - crz crztalk 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you check the history of the deleted article you will see that any additions of massacres committed by the IDF in more recent times were removed again by pro-Israeli contributors. --Nyp 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why don't you start List of Israeli Defense Forces operations and limit it to 10 casualties or higher? It would be hard work, but you would avoid the POV issues. - crz crztalk 20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I am not mistaken such a suggestion was brought forth on the other AfD, but was either ignored or not good enough. I would not have a problem with attempting to create such an article, and if you can provide me with the information in the deleted article I would have a basic ground to start working with. Not meaning that I would publish the very same article again, but that I would not have to go through fifty years of Middle East history before creating the article. --Nyp 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment AfD is not a vote. People can and should continue to voice their opinions on the deletion of these articles but I would like to see a closer that actually deletes an article whose nomination was withdrawn. MartinDK 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Since the nominator has withdrawn the nom, can't someone other than the nominator post the template? Perhaps an admin or uninvolved user should do so.--Mantanmoreland 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a hot topic. Personally I am a Zionist Jew, so I am biased in favor of keeping anything related to terrorism against my people. On a more formal level, I think the material is fundamentally verifiable, notable, and neutral in point of view. By this last point, I mean that there are many Palestinian supporters of terrorism who should find no fault with the informative format of the articles under discussion. I hope cooler heads prevail in this debate. 129.98.212.71 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, the problem here is not that we don't have enough people saying keep. The problem is that we still have 4-5 people saying delete so it can't be speedy closed. So really I see no reason for any heated debate to resurface. MartinDK 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, it looks like consensus is saying that as long as a list only contains verifiable incidents, it can remain on Wikipedia, even if it only lists one side's attacks. Fine, I'm happy with that, I'm changing my original comment to a keep. I look forward to seeing the deleted list brought back using the same standards.
Can we at least reach consensus to remove the word "massacre" from all of these lists, and from the individual articles they link to? In many of the listed cases, the only source that refers to an incident as a massacre is the "Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs". If the international media or other neutral sources call something a massacre, fine, we can call it that too. If not, all the articles like "Bus X massacre" should be renamed to "Bus X bombing". Quack 688 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, too many redlinks, need to wait untill those redlinks to turn blue in order to reorder. frummer 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Gabi S. 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that we should rename them so that the rethoric used is the same as the Israeli articles. With all due respect though a guy blowing himself up is not a complicated affair. Yes, it is horrible when he kills people and it is definately a notable event but I would find it very hard to fill an entire article about one attack, except perhaps the larger ones that have prompted serious military responses. Eventhough we keep these articles I still think there is room for consistency as stressed by Quack. I personally like timelines (that extension to the MediaWiki software is way underrated in my opinion), apparently there is no consensus for that which was partly why I abstained so that's off the table but there is still room for improvement. We just don't need to go through this AfD to do that. MartinDK 08:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--yidi 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete & merge into non-pov lists of all the atrocities committed during this war. also the inclusion of word 'palestinian' in title is unnecessary & arguably pov. would we accept 'List of Israeli civilian massacres'?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep - No grounds for deletion. Apparently, the nominator was frustrated that a list which was a copy paste of another article and contained only falsehoods was deleted, but in contrast to that one, these are lists of factual suicide attacks that took place and are relevant and there is no reason whatsoever to delete them, nor was there any attempt to articulate such a reason. The comment above by Bsnowaball shows why those who want to delete the article lack a whole lot of knowledge on the issue and shouldn't participate in the AFD probably. Amoruso 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack anyone. Sorry if it sounded like it did to you. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that people who vote delete are "lacking knowledge" and "shouldn't participate in the AfD" is an attack on people's intelligence but I accept your apology. MetsFan76 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it attack on people's intelligence ? I merely meant that a person who doesn't know what Palestinian Islamic Jihad is and thinks that I've added the word "Palestinian" there is obviously lacking knowledge on the issue. It's like saying that writing "Irish Republican Army" is POV and unnecessary. cheers, Amoruso 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what Palestinian Islamic Jihad is yet I voted delete. Are you saying that I "lack knowledge?" MetsFan76 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not my intent to generalise. I didn't mention your name, i mentioned Bsnowball above. Cheers, Amoruso 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Bsnowball is entitled to his opinion without someone claiming that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Would you like if someone did that you during the next AfD? MetsFan76 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I make a comment that proves I'm not familiar with the matter at hand, then I wouldn't mind. The comment above proved it. Amoruso 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you make a comment if you had no clue what you were talking about? My point is that it is not up to you to pick on people if they made a "mistake," it is up to the admin or whomever that decide whether to keep this article or not. All I was asking for you to do was to keep cool; I didn't ask for a debate. MetsFan76 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question was created by me, and I was offended by the allegation made by Bsnowball - I explained politely that if someone doesn't understand that basic issue about the group concerned then his vote is questionable, which was my entitled opinion. Cheers, Amoruso 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kfar Qasim was a massacre, so yes it had 2 massacres and the rest a copy paste. The falsehoods are the ones from 1948 that weren't included in the original 1948 war list. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know except for the WP:POINT. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pepsidrinka 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brrreeeport

edit
Brrreeeport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable internet meme. Only one reference, and while the google hits are significant (109,000), only the one source has been noted for this meme. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by admin Grutness (csd a1). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon darkness rage

edit
Pokemon darkness rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Anyone with common sense can see this page needs to be deleted. Not notable at all, poorly written, etc. (Sorry if this is a bad reason, I haven't recommended an article for deletion before). Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 03:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Poker League

edit
United States Poker League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable poker tournament. No reliable sources I could find, just than blog-level stuff. No verification of any of the info. Also it's not scheduled to take place until April so this is crystal balling. Otto4711 03:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From WP:V: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material..." with a number of criteria that those meet. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above quotation is selective: the material must be relevant to the notability that is established using third-party independent sources. "If an article topic has no third-party, independent sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must be looking at different articles. This one has one link: the official website of the league. It has no other sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, by all means, add the first one from above. I did look at the wrong page on the second link, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 08:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Poker League

edit
Australian Poker League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete - Another non-notable poker league. No independent verifiable sourcing. Otto4711 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a perfectly good tag for asking that an article be sourced. Why not use that rather than mark everything for deletion? JROBBO 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I looked and there are no reliable third party sources that cover this topic as required by WP:V. If there were, I'd have added them myself. It makes no sense to add a source tag to an article when I already know that no sources exist. The "sources" linked below are not reliable third-party sources as required by the policy. The league has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and thus it is not notable. Otto4711 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you "know" that there are no sources at all? Have you thought to look outside of online sources? There are such things as books or magazines, you know. JROBBO 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, are there? Thank you, I appreciate your letting me know of these "books" and "magazines" you speak of. Meanwhile, do you have a source, online or otherwise, that discusses this topic in a non-trivial fashion? Something other than a bar or a club that's hosting a tournament and announcing it in its calendar sectionperhaps? Anything at all? Otto4711 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The club sources I mentioned below are backups, just in case you think the Australian Poker League isn't as active in the community as it claims to be. The main sources are the poker news websites, as they should be. In the same way as computer games are considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, computer game news sources, poker subjects should be considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, poker news sources. Quack 688 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Simply being "mentioned" is not sufficient to establish notability. To be notable the article's topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Otto4711 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like the other recent poker-related AfD nominations, this has been mentioned across a wide number of poker-related sources. [9]

[10] [11]

Looking up a few club websites confirms that they really are as active in the pub and club scene as they say they are: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

If it really has over 145,000 registered players in a country with a population of 20 million, it's definitely notable. I'd like to see a source for that membership number, though. (Then again, are we allowed to mention any organization's number of members? If we're not allowed to use the organization's own membership count, what figure can we use? Any news source which discusses an organization is unlikely to independently verify if that organization really has 145,000 members, for example.) Quack 688 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there's enough on the article already to convince me that it's notable. It's more well-written than most articles on Wikipedia, and has a lot of potential. Definitely keep it. JROBBO 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup of Poker

edit
World Cup of Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable online tournament. Lacks independent sources, unverified. Otto4711 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn - nominated the wrong one. Sorry about that. Otto4711 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not an online tournament (though some qualifying is online), has dozens of obviously reliable verifiable sources 1 2 3 etc, and is unlike a lot of others is notable in its unique structure, and its annual nature sets it apart too. Certainly far more notable than some others with articles. 2005 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needless AFD.
Keep, per above. Rray 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:21Z

Krista Manfredi

edit
Krista Manfredi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

High School Drama teacher who had minor roles in a couple of movies. I think this falls well short of WP:BIO's "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Delete.--Isotope23 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, attack page. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Pijan

edit
David Pijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by 68.223.201.167. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 04:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect all to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes (in lieu of deletion); they can be re-opened once they've aired. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:29Z

Night Light

edit
Night Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although this is a confirmed episode of the program SpongeBob SquarePants (see this), the article is just a few headings and templates. It does not have any information about the plot or airdate. Delete and if more info becomes available, recreate the article. Squirepants101 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of my reason above:

Waiting (SpongeBob SquarePants episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fungus Among Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rise And Shine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (copies summary from The Original Fry Cook) Squirepants101 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding:

Spy Buddies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rise and Shine (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waiting (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:27Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:31Z

Tumba the game

edit
Tumba the game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability, non-encyclopedic, probable nonsense. I'd suggest it should probably be deleted MidgleyDJ 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:32Z

Aubrey Hornsby

edit
Aubrey Hornsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Cribcage 04:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One Night In Hackney posed a valid question regading the reliablity of Paul Freeman as a source. Clearly he is an amateur web presence, but a Google search shows that he is independent and I believe credible. He has published multiple works online about airports. Is he non-trivial? At minimum his work demonstrates that Gen. Hornsby is being discussed outside of this article. --Kevin Murray 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Proposal withdrawn (Keep)

Jobber

edit
Jobber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is a glorified dictdef pretending to be a dab page. I suggest deleting the entire contents and turning it into a redirect to Jobber (fuel), which is the one legitimate entry. I guess technically this isn't even really a AfD then, but it's a radical enough change that I figured it deserved some kind of review -- RoySmith (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:33Z

Ross copperman

edit
Ross copperman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. One out-of-print album, one self-released album. Pure vanity text, the sole contributions to Wikipedia byRedHeadNYC (talk · contribs). PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP -- ITS only contribution to Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 157

edit
London Buses route 157 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A detailed breakdown of -- a bus route. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule, directory, or collection of indiscriminate information. From the creator of the monster hits London Buses route 181, London Buses route 130, London Buses route 124, and the unforgettable Bell Green, Sainsbury's! -- Calton | Talk 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only potentially notable route - the 159 - isn't in there, after all. Tevildo 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is for this reason that I run OCTAWiki. I know damn well that those bus routes would be spontaneously obliterated if I stuck 'em here. Delete all. --Dennisthe2 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen too many bus route articles, but this would be an excellent model. It covers a detailed history of the route and service. This is not a bus schedule, a directory OR a collection of indiscriminate information. Unfortunately WP:NOT is far too often abused to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia". It would help if relevant references to a Wikipedia criteria or guideline would be included, as WP:NOT, does NOT fly in this case. Alansohn 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't see many bus routes for the same reason you don't see many bus routes in a hardbound encyclopedia. WP:NOT very much applies here. That said, it does set a precedent for a transit-oriented wiki, which is pretty much one of my goals to further expand from the OCTAWiki link above. Not sure when it'll hit the street (!), but it's something to bear in mind. --Dennisthe2 05:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just went through my entire Encyclopedia Britannica and I cannot find a single Pokemon article, or any Seinfeld episodes or Star Wars planets. Surely you don't believe that any "hardbound encyclopedia" sets anything for Wikipedia. After all, all you've done is stated "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia" without even bothering to dress it in something Wikipolicy-related. The existence of another place to put this information doesn't justify deletion either. After all, I've made specific suggestions about where all that Pokemon stuff can be inserted and no one has followed through on that idea. Alansohn 12:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not about to argue whether you've gone through all of EB, but EB seemsto ahve slightly (!) different standards. Besides, Wikipedia does not bend to you; you must bend to Wikipedia. That, and as I've said, there is a precedent for a transit-oriented wiki. Maybe the transit stuff doesn't belong here, but there need to be other places to put it. I'm searching out options. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went through both the Macropedia and Micropedia, and I still can't find Pikachu anywhere. Have you found any such articles in the print edition? I understand that people have an agenda to create a transit-based wiki, but here on Wikipedia, we use policies and standards that have been established to load traditional encyclopedia content, and thereby include many subjects that my Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover. You are one of many people who has incorrectly and misleadingly implied that there is a Wikipedia policy that forbids this article. It simply does not exists and your agenda to push this to another wiki is questionable. Alansohn 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment In response to your edit summary question: WP:N and WP:NOT are the policies in question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information sometimes applies even if the information is verifiable. WP:N makes one type of distinction-is the information mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? In all of these articles, I see use of only primary sources, so the answer seems to be "no". Seraphimblade 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Again, the nomination makes explicit reference to WP:NOT, and you're pulling the same fast one on us all, arguing that it means anything you have decided it means. You cannot possibly read this article and tell me that it is an "indiscriminate collection of information". WP:NOT is sometimes a genuine issue, but in this case it is a poor excuse for deletion from those who seem to be utterly unable to come up with an actual explanation and rely on WP:NOT as a poor crutch. Alansohn 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please keep in mind also WP:TINC. I am done discussing this with you. --Dennisthe2 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's amazing how people who can't come up with a legitimate argument have to resort to the blame game and then walk away. I'd never assume that you're part of the cabal, because the cabal has much higher admission standards. It's disappointing that we still can't get a coherent explanation of how WP:NOT is relevant. Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Everything in the infobox, for a start, is directory-style information (fares? service frequency?), and cumulative listings of all this stuff makes up -- wait for it -- a directory. And what makes the difference between one bus route and another in this pile of bus routes? Pretty indiscriminate, if you ask me. What actual encyclopedia-like content exists is, essentially, for busspotters (dunno if they exist, but this IS the country that gave the world trainspotting and planespotting, so it wouldn't surprise me.
                  • Many towns have infoboxes. The town infoboxes list population, year established, latitude, longitude, mayor. What content often exists is little more than towncruft. They're all basically the same; just directory information that changes a little bit from one to the next. Yet, for some reason we have tens of thousands of these articles -- all almost entirely the same -- around the world. I would entertain your position if it made reference to an actual flesh-and-blood Wikipedia policy that forbids this article and requires its deletion. Other than that, my analogy for retention is equally as valid as your's for deletion. Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just went through my entire Encyclopedia Britannica... And when was it published? If it was published 10 or more years ago, that might hint at why current events aren't indicated in it. Betcha it doesn't mention the Indian Ocean tsunami or the 2006 US midterm elections, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The tsunami and elections aren't in my Britannica. Are the AFDs for these articles up yet? Wikipedia is not paper, and we can afford to include quality, well-written, thoroughly-researched articles such as these. The fact that some people turn up their noses is a shallow elitism that proposes that "anything I'm interested in is important; anything I don't care about should be deleted." When you have a chance, please point me to the printed encyclopedia that has articles for each and every Pokemon character, Seinfeld episode and Star Wars planet.Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment In reply to Alansohn (as stated in another AfD), WP:N does apply here. Source mentions must be nontrivial and secondary, and that's not the case here. Seraphimblade 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a transit wiki would be by far the best way to settle this, and easier to keep current (and historical!)DGG 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Get rid of this. We are not a bus schedule and this appears to be a completely arbitrary bus route. MartinDK 07:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT the bus schedule (and the transit website would be better for that anyway.) No other assertion of notability-and really, how often do bus routes get mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? Seraphimblade 08:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why aren't bus routes inherently notable? Anyway, the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 where this was already dealt with at some length is of relevance. The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns. Regan123 09:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That bus routes are inherently unnotable does not mean that it is impossible for a notable bus route to exist. That, however, does not set a precedent for all bus routes - just the notable ones. --Dennisthe2 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except London Bus routes aren't inherently unnotable, just the opposite. We've been through this with the railways and in fact they have now been excluded from WP:LOCAL according to the latest discussions. Roads get rerouted and that doesn't make them inherently unnotable. Regan123 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except London Bus routes aren't inherently unnotable, just the opposite. Sounds like the Special Olympics approach, where everything is "special". And roads are rerouted by large construction crews, while bus routes are rerouted by a couple of people with clipboards in a room somewhere.
          • bus routes are rerouted by a couple of people with clipboards in a room somewhere. Not in London they are not - it takes considerable research, effort, agreement, funding, contracts, tendering and so on....As to the special olympics, I'm not sure what you're getting atRegan123 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way Do you know some reliable source somewhere that actually does this, or did you just pull this out of your hat? If you're suggesting that Wikipedia is or should be doing that, I have two words for you: original research. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only the most notable and ones where a history can actually be provided. 800 bus route articles running around would be pretty useless. RHB 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why bus routes and not train lines? Akihabara 12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you understand how easy it is to alter a bus line, and how easy it is not to alter a train route. =^_^= Besides, I figure this, as theory - oftentimes a train is going to have more historical significance due to interregional connection and the inability of said train to be only slightly alterable (due to the issue with altering rails); a bus route is as flexible as the surrounding city streets for the most part, and metropolitan bus routes typically don't leave their metropolitan areas except to connect and transfer with other neighboring systems. That said, as I point out, there's a precedent for a transit wiki - but now you bring up the issue of whether trains belong there, too. Something for me to think about over my coffee. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or minimally merge the lot somewhere per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of a hundred articles. Verifiable content. Not sensibly mergable. Nathanian 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my 11.5 ounce (326 gram) can of Hills Bros Medium Roast Decaffeinated Coffee in front of me are all verifiable, and they're not getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. If other editors want to AfD Pokemon articles, Seinfeld episodes or Star Wars planets that do not meet WP:Notability, I'd be all for it. - Aagtbdfoua 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources. If "[t]he bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns," let's see the scholarly articles documenting the impact of this bus route on that growth. Shimeru 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of scholarly articles is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for a request for expansion or a request for sources. JROBBO 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of sources is a reason for deletion. And if the reason I quote above is the reason given for keeping, I want to see the sources that support that statement. We can't make a claim like that and leave it unsupported, and I believe it's a spurious claim in the case of at least this particular bus route. Shimeru 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try this following a two second Google search. Morden opened in virtual countryside and the routes were for the housing estates in the area. It should also be noted that the article refers to the trolleybus replacement, part of the public transport history of South London. Regan123 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Nothing about bus schedules or timetables shown in there. GCFreak2 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the infobox:
Level: Daily (5:00 until 1:30)
Frequency: About every 12-15 minutes
Journey time : 60-70 minutes
Night: No night service
--Calton | Talk 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in an infobox, and not part of the main article, nor does it claim to be; the rest of the article is more encyclopaedic. Some people need to stop clutching at straws to try and get what they don't like deleted. JROBBO 09:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has a well-written history section which gives it a claim to being far more than directory-style information. And despite what some users are claiming, there is barely any directory-style information there. To delete an article based on that it should resemble a web page for a bus route. It doesn't. This is a good, well-written article on a bus route with historical information, and there's no reason why it should be deleted. JROBBO 09:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable in the context of London and scope for expansion. I'm satisfied that the article is not a timetable. MRSC • Talk 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the history is useful (but needs citations). Some of the "cruft" like fares and stops should probably be removed though. It would be better with a main focus on the history, like Myrtle Avenue Line. There are going to be secondary sources from newspapers, and, at least for those that were once streetcars, books have been written on the subject. --NE2 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is scheduling info, but the article itself seems encyclopedic enough. And I must tip my hat to anyone who can jot off a decently readable historical ency article about a frigging bus route. Ford MF 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This has become a complicated issue. Articles on bus routes have survived 4 AfDs in the past, but there seems to be a wave of new half-complete articles causing AfDs like this to pop up again. These are:
  1. London Buses route RV1
  2. London Buses route T31
  3. London Buses route 157
  4. London Buses route 181
  5. London Buses route 130
  6. London Buses route 124
  7. London Buses route T33
  8. London buses route T32
  9. London Buses route C1
  10. London Buses route A10
  11. London Buses route 410
  12. London Buses route 312
  13. London Buses route 328
  14. London Buses route 202
  15. London Buses route 197
  16. London Buses route 196
  17. London Buses route 194
  18. London Buses route 28
  19. London Buses route 185
  20. London buses route 26
  21. London Buses route 91
  22. London Buses route 75

I propose that thay all be sent to my userspace so I can improve them to the neccessary standards set out in previos AfDs. Thank you --sonicKAI 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Anti-Saloon League. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:37Z

Prohibition leaders

edit
Prohibition leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't feel this article is needed. First of all, for an article ostensibly focused on leaders of Prohibition, it only centers on two. The information about these two people is better suited to their individual articles. If there's anything not contained there it should be merged. Crystallina 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 130

edit
London Buses route 130 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157; not actually nom'd at that time. Same rationale, and noting that bus routes are not inherently notable.

Also nominating the following:

Dennisthe2 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grey 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT This has become a complicated issue. Articles on bus routes have survived 4 AfDs in the past, but there seems to be a wave of new half-complete articles causing AfDs like this to pop up again. These are:
  1. London Buses route RV1
  2. London Buses route T31
  3. London Buses route 157
  4. London Buses route 181
  5. London Buses route 130
  6. London Buses route 124
  7. London Buses route T33
  8. London buses route T32
  9. London Buses route C1
  10. London Buses route A10
  11. London Buses route 410
  12. London Buses route 312
  13. London Buses route 328
  14. London Buses route 202
  15. London Buses route 197
  16. London Buses route 196
  17. London Buses route 194
  18. London Buses route 28
  19. London Buses route 185
  20. London buses route 26
  21. London Buses route 91
  22. London Buses route 75

I propose that thay all be sent to my userspace so I can improve them to the neccessary standards set out in previos AfDs. Thank you --sonicKAI 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Miles Tredinnick in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:39Z

Doomsday Genesis

edit
Doomsday Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Utterly unnotable musical that had a brief run far from London more than 30 years ago. Herostratus 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lornial Dale Wayne Randalll

edit
Lornial Dale Wayne Randalll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article fails to assert any notability, provides no context, and appears to be entirely autobiographical. Other than that his naming was an apparent clerical error, this tells us NOTHING about him. Dennisthe2 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, lack of context, lack of assertion of notability. Crz is right to have declined this without additional eyes, but the additional eyes have agreed with deletion. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Larsson

edit
Veronika Larsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability, verifiability from reliable sources. - crz crztalk 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio (G12). It's a copyvio of the "About Case's Ladder" section in the article I linked. Good catch, Wtfunkymonkey.--Kchase T 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case's Ladder

edit
Case's Ladder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neutral bump up from speedy; this board game site claims to have either one million, five million, ten million, or the largest online gaming league ever, depending on which source you look at. I also found this article that may actually be a reposted press release. No opinion, just yet. Kchase T 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, and also rd to List of Starfleet officers by rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:42Z

List of Starfleet officers

edit
List of Starfleet officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

1) Page will have a hard time being exhaustive 2) can't imagine any user ever searching for a general list of characters; more likely to look for individual characters, and infobox on major characters' pages provides easy nav between them 3) List role of this page better served by category page/cat inclusion -- and those already exist. True, doesn't include rank insignia or career highlights but, again, that info's on character pages. Generally, don't see utility of amalgamating all this info. EEMeltonIV 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:43Z

T.Y.R.A.

edit
T.Y.R.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is no proof that Tyra Banks will be releasing an album soon. I have looked up various supposed tracks on google, with no news. I have checked the album title, with no results. As far as I can tell, this is all simply rumour. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this page is not worth keeping until it can be verified somehow. By the way, a lot of User:Treyomarlorenztiptonforever12's contributions seem to be based on rumour, so if someone more experienced can check his pages out, it would be greatly appreciated. SKS2K6 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 or G11, take your pick really. -- Steel 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Geez

edit
2 Geez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Promotion for somebody's YouTube video, but it contains a claim of notability ("world-renowned"), so here we are at AFD. Non-notable video by non-notable people. FreplySpang 07:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC) This is actually very popular in certain parts of Western Washington, so I think it should stay. These two individuals have created an impressive feat with this video. I heard about it before seeing the article, so that says something. -Grant Leslie[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:43Z

Dina DeStefano

edit
Dina DeStefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn model, fails WP:BIO, bit player that appeared briefly in pro wrestling promotion, has around 180 ghits, many retreads of this article Booshakla 07:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and rename to Flatulist. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:45Z

===Professional farter===I'm modifying it!

Professional farter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completly juvenile. Only a few people have actually been "notable" for doing this. Only one source as well. Looks like someone was bored when they made this page. Newspaper98 09:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read the article, and my reaction was "WTF?!" The fact that there's only one source and that I can't see much on Google tends to back me up. So if you do come up with some sources, I just might be tempted to !vote keep. MER-C 11:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It was a bit close, but discussion (among the non-WP:ILIKEIT-commentators) focused on its importance on the stock market, and there remain serious doubts that this company's share price is indeed used to calculate stock market indices (see the second-to-last comment). One would assume to see some mainstream media coverage in that case. Sandstein 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric Software Solutions Private Limited

edit
Geometric Software Solutions Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

notability dubious. Reads like an advert, and no sources. Charlie 09:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article shall not be deleted. The information available in this article is varifiable at

The Company is listed in BSE and NSE

It is not polite to put delete-tag on articles unknown to you, without even taking the patiance to follow the link provided in the article for reference. - Jijithnr 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look, I mean no offense to you, but I did follow the only link that was provided when I nominated the article: to the company's homepage. I noted that it was the company's homepage, and that combined with the fact that you deleted my unreferenced tag led me to open an AFD here, so that consensus may be reached. You can feel free to join the debate, which will last up to five days, and the article will not necessarily be deleted. Charlie 10:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment

Sure, I am continuing my editing of this page, for this hour. May be you have found only one link sometime back. It is ok. It happens, that is the spirit of wikipedia, it is alive !!! (I recognize your role as a supervisor of recent changes. But you should allow some time for a recently made article to be tagged for anything:- unreferenced, delete or whatever. Allow the contributer his/her time, atleast, one hour of editing time, and then start your tagging. I don't know what is Wikipedia's policy on tagging a live article, while it is being edited by its contributer/ original auther. ) -Jijithnr 26 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete unless proof is produced that the company passes WP:CORP. A comment on the links:
  • [27] is a reprinted press release. Doesn't count.
  • [28] - Self-published. Doesn't count.
  • [29] This is the only reliable source provided, but it's a stock recommendation.
  • [30] Directory entry. Doesn't count.
MER-C 10:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete this article

Comment Nevertheless I suggest the article be considerably cleaned up and not read like promotional literature. Akihabara 13:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Company is listed in BSE and NSE

More Links

.php]

The article shall not be deleted.

2.The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications (The company is described in many IT magazines of India, it is popular in Indian IT circles, the article has value in Indian context.

3.The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. See Bombay Stock Exchange or BSE Sensex. The company is traded in Bombay Stock Exchange.

Thus it passes WP:CORP : Criteria for companies and corporations

The article may be added to WikiProject India

edit

For more information, on Geometric Software and its products and its activites, please go through the following links. I could not classify them. Before deciding to delete this article please go through these links Jijithnr 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anybody who follow the links given above will find many links to support the article. It may require clean up, but surely not a candidate for deletion. - Jijithnr 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:51Z

Perreo Radio

edit
Perreo Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability not asserted; fails WP:WEB Akihabara 09:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete; of course if Mr. Tabar continues accomplishing things he'll be well on his way into encyclopedic inclusion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:54Z

Andy Tabar

edit
Andy Tabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable. Seems to be an effort at promotion. The only contributor to the article was a single person whose only contributions have been editing the article. I trimmed a large quantity of excess verbiage and duplicate sentences and puffery adjectives and an infobox which duplicated his web link. Much of the verbiage was like "Andy Tabar is a young entrepreneur with new visions and high expectations." I removed capitalization and linking that served just as gaudy decoration. What remains is a non-notable 20 year-old business student who has a web page company and got given a speaking engagement and a local business award. Sole proprietor web page companies are not notable. Hu 10:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:Bio states that notability has multiple forms of indication. ie: Central Criteria, Alternative Tests. Such information is used directly from third party sources. If you need to make further clarification, review the original information and trim the content as you see fit. The intention was to cover the information that is publicly available about the subject, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian212 (talk • contribs) 21:55, December 26, 2006
  • Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to OS-tan, but only the verifiable parts, please. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:56Z

List of OS-tans

edit
List of OS-tans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Well-written, nicely laid out, vaguely interesting and amusing. It also completely and utterly fails to meet Wikipedia content policies: WP:OR, WP:V and arguably WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well. The article marked with OR and unsourced tags for two and a half months, and nothing's been done about it despite continuing contributions from a group of users. AfD, sadly, is the next step. -/- Warren 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I read this article about a year ago, and actually liked it a lot and found it both interesting and informative. But, as the nomination points out, the article completely fails to meet WP:OR and WP:V. It seems that a number of the characters vary wildly from artist to artist. Without a reliable source, the descriptions of such characters can only be based on generalizations and perceptions of the writer, which is both unverifiable and original research. My hope is that some of the more notable OS-tans can eventually be brought into the main article, if and when a suitable source is found. But, for now, this article should be deleted, as it doesn't seem likely at this point that this article will be fixed otherwise. Nimrand 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to people voting to merge: This is up for AfD because it is unsourced and is original research. Merging is not an option if we can't verify the information through references! -/- Warren 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I belive that there is enough readily available information on the common 'tans (i.e. Windows 2000, Windows XP) that if the article was merged that it could be properly cited. Darkstar949 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (don't merge) as what's euphemistically called "original research". -- Hoary 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources exist, but mostly in Japanese: http://futaba-info.sakura.ne.jp/cgi/dic/chara/ziten.cgi, http://kazumi386.org/~ostan2/pic_uploader/ for instance. --212.38.230.22 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Japanese sources are acceptable, although English sources are preferred if available. However, the later link just looks like a repository of fan artwork made for OS-tans, which is a primary source. However, for most of the content of this article, secondary sources are needed, because deriving generalizations from the artwork themselves is original research without secondary sources for verification. The magazine that published artwork of OS-tans could probably be used as a source (because the publication itself is notable and relevant to the topic and it is independent of Futaba), but the content that cites that source should be limited to what can be taken from that source, which probably amounts to reporting on what OS-tans were featured and showing examples of the artwork printed. Because the content that the source would likely allow is so small, it most likely does not justify a seperate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete (don't merge) - Wikipedia is only for Serious Business. 74.134.114.185 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Serious business? I must have missed that policy page. Nimrand 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Lukmanier Powerline. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:59Z

Pylon in the artificial lake of Santa Maria

edit
Pylon in the artificial lake of Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another electricity pylon from the systematic cleanup. There is certainly a claim of notability here. This unique 75m tower is located in the middle of a lake, and was constructed on a raft of concrete to stop corrosion from the lake water. I find it pretty bog standard as they come. and it's not a tall structure either. Is there anything of real merit here? Ohconfucius 10:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas in Hebrew

edit
Hamas in Hebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A POV fork. Unencyclopaedic and created to illustrate a point. I can't imagine having an article called Pajero in Spanish related to Mitsubishi Pajero. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caradon Hill transmitting station

edit
Caradon Hill transmitting station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Yet another unremarkable tower. No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:59Z

Dissensus_law

edit
Dissensus_law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Redundant 'net folklore' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdg (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, consensus was reached among established editors. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's Tomb (blog)

edit
Lenin's Tomb (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A blog. Sources: the blog. I see no evidence this passes WP:WEB, and no evidence it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that user meaders is still making edits (against consensus) on the article.Felix-felix 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No "consensus". Please keep this sort of distraction for the main article discussion pages. I have reinstated the warnings you deleted on your talk pages. Thank you. Meaders 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement for unnotable political blog.--OinkOink 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been repeatedly cited in UK news sources. Private Eye magazine flagged up the coverage of Hurricane Katrine for one of its lead stories. 01:08, 27 December 2006— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
  • Keep. The blog has been cited in The Guardian, Private Eye, The Morning Star & Socialist Worker. It broke the story that Innovative Emergency Management had attempted to cover up its involvement in Katrina emergency relief - this story was subsequently covered in Private Eye. Therefore qualifies for notability: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Worth noting that the user 'Meaders', who complains of vandalism, is himself the habitual vandal of this page according to the discussion page. Socialist Worker covered the blog when it leaked documents protected by the Official Secrets Act relating to Craig Murray's allegations that the government had received information from the Uzbek government obtained through torture. Neither story is by any means trival, both sources are independent of the site itself, and both are reliable publications disseminated through UK newsagents and sellers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.50.7 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep As above-important and oft cited blog, referenced in many other wikipedia articles. User 'Meaders' is a habitual vandal of the page,with a particular axe to grind-as a quick look at his contribution history may reveal. The blog itself may be on blogspot-but a cursory glance will show how busy it is with 3-4 posts daily, often attracting comments in numbers of up to 3 figures.Felix-felix 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless those claiming that there are reliable sources about this add them to the article - I couldn't find any myself. We should improve our articles about Lenin's Tomb and Lenin's Tomb before spending any time on this. DVD R/W 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's any help, here are the citations on Socialist Worker: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9777; http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8055 The others are in print editions. Private Eye, 16th September 2005, Page 3. The Guardian, 5th November 2005, Page 36. Morning Star, 8th September 2006, front page.— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
Surely cleanup issues should be raised in the talk page and not be forced at gunpoint on AfD? I'll add the citations above now.Felix-felix 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All but the Morning Star ione in and references all fixed.Felix-felix 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of which is now deleted; the other looking likely to be so.Meaders 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mean because you've just nominated it!Felix-felix 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I mean because it, like Lenin's Tomb (blog) is an advert.Meaders 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why you're so keen on editing the Lenin's Tomb article then? And, I notice that you nominated both of the above articles, btw.Felix-felix 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, copyvio. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José Vázquez

edit
José Vázquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

If this person exists, then I believe he must be non-notable. I can find no reference to him on google. Paradoxically, I have a feeling that the page is a copyvio, but I cannot find where the writing was copied from. Something to do with the style it is written in. It is also unsourced. Didn't want to Speedy it, as if this person IS real, there might well be an argument as to their notability. J Milburn 12:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:01Z

Historic sites in Orissa

edit
Historic sites in Orissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy due to "copyright problems from 123orissa.com as well as the now defunct orissa-tourism.com. No significant edits beyond the copyright problem"; seems valid but the article is out of the 48 hour period and the subject may be valid if copyvio sorted. If not, it needs deleting. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this has no sources, as Sandstein says, is good enough reason to delete, even if it isn't copyvio. However, as that was only brought up two days ago and AfDs run for at least five for a reason, I feel that this discussion should be relisted given the change in focus, so editors have the chance to show verifiability if possible. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some references. I was unable to find the copyright violations. If we find that some body has copied something, then we should delete ONLY the offending portion and not the entire article.Preetikapoor0 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following Preetikapoor0's excellent work, I've added some more refs and wikified the article a bit. Each of the sites mentioned in the article have at least one reference. utcursch | talk 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; recommend merging these to the locality, to the backbone article, or to each other. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:05Z

Brecon VHF-transmitter

edit
Brecon VHF-transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Flint TV relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guildford Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heaton Park BT Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sutton Common BT Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swingate Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woofferton transmitting station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per AfD precedents set by Ohconfucius and listed at: User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, all the above UK mast/relay sites fail WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory, a indiscriminate collection of information or the MB21 transmitter gallery. tgheretford (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are something like 10,000 radio masts and towers in the UK, and I agree that 99% of them aren't notable. However, most of the ones featured on Wikipedia are in the notable 1%, although the articles often don't (yet) state why. Please don't expect contributors to expand all these articles at once. It will take time. Heaton Park is notable because it provided a large portion of the trunk comms capacity into Manchester and there is quite of lot of primary and secondary source written history about the architecture of these 'Chilterns' type concrete towers, which are all significant local landmarks and cultural icons. The article could possibly be merged with similar articles about the other six towers of this type, but it shouldn't just be deleted. Sutton Common is notable because of it was originally conceived as part of the 1950s 'Backbone' chain designed to provide the UK and NATO with survivable comms during nuclear war. Swingate is notable in that it is, AFAIK, the only radar tower from the Battle of Britain in WWII still in use today. Woofferton is notable because it was shared by the BBC and VOA and provided a stronger short-wave broadcast signal into the Eastern Bloc than any other western short-wave broadcast transmitter during the years of Soviet jamming. WP is not a paper encyclopaedia, there is no shortage of space and there is no need to delete an article because it it is arcane. With over 1,500,000 articles, arcaneness is inevitable. Harumphy 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woofferton per Harumphy. I believe it is notable given the links already on its page. Akihabara 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedence/nom. This is much better suited for Wikia than here. Some of these are better than the American ones. That said I fail to see the importance of these masts. Regarding the above statement no, being a stub is not reason by itself for deletion but in this case they are stubs for a very good reason. MartinDK 15:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meet content policies, or else merge each of these (except maybe Woofferton, which might be able to stand on its own) into the appropriate locality article per WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts also suggests merging. JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The have verifiable information and informative images. The concrete towers are as architecturally interesting as any building. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major local landmark. Nathanian 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as User:Harumphy already explained, these masts in some way are unique. Furthermore, they tend to meet the core content policies (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV) and failing keep, can still be merged into the the articles on their local municipalities as suggested by WP:LOCAL.-- danntm T C 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woofferton and Swingate. Woofferton is one of the handful of major HF stations, has a long history and Swingate is a VHF main station and also was part of the wartime Chain Home Radar system.Chillysnow 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woofferton. It is not a minor 'mobile phone mast' type of site. It is a massive, historic and important transmitting station. This article links to a new web publication that is probably the most extensive history of a short wave station that is presently available. Martinte 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Saw the Pye Green tower from the train today, and came to look it up. Glad it was still here! There may be a case for merging several of these entries to the 'backbone' article however. Crosbiesmith 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to William Henry Harvey. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:06Z

Phycologia Britannica

edit
Phycologia Britannica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. An unencyclopaedic list. Akihabara 13:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Online Poker

edit
World Championship of Online Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable online tournament lacking reliable verifiable sources. Otto4711 14:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is a real event, and run by one of the biggest online poker companies (PokerStars) so it's quite notable in the poker world, but I can't find any reliable sources or any other non-trivial coverage, so delete per WP:V and lack of sources to show notability. Jayden54 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable, largest online tournament of its type. Rray 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again obviously notable with literally hundreds of non-trivial coverage. 1, 2, 3 etc etc. Obviously meets WP:V. Otto please do a little research before any more of these nuisance afds. 2005 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like one story and two press release-type notes. If consensus is that establishes notability, then so be it. But I will thank you to refrain from accusing me of some sort of wrong-doing. Otto4711 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two minutes of research would have found Sports Illustrated and CBS News articles. The nomination was not "wrong-doing", but pretty clearly frivilous. Like the other one, if you would have taken a moment to check for reliable sources, others of us would not have to take our time addressing this. 2005 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did check for reliable sources. I checked dozens upon dozens of the Google results and they came up as garbage and trivial. If you had better luck on your search results, good for you. Hope you'll take the time to add them to the article so that the next person who sees it will see proper sourcing and that you'll direct some of your ire at the author who couldn't be arsed to source it to begin with. In the meantime, with of course all due respect, you should probably refrain from posting about what I did or didn't do when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Otto4711 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And actually, now that I have the opportunity to look at the SI and CBS articles, neither of them discusses the topic of the WCOP in a non-trivial fashion. The SI article is about a particular player and the WCOP is mentioned in passing in one sentence. The CBS article is about whether team play in an online tournament can be beneficial and mentions that the author played two WCOP events as part of his experiment in team tourney play. Neither of which satisfies the requirement that third-party coverage be "non-trivial." Otto4711 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond silly now. ...still the premier online poker tournament series, promising to be the largest online tournament in history, with over $8 million in guaranteed prize money, J.C. Tran Wins Poker Stars WCOOP Main Event plus dozens and dozens more in the main industry publications. Once again, anyone doing even five minutes of research would have found all these obviously non-trivial third party articles. 2005 07:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I said, The hundred or so sites that I checked off a google search all came up with trivial mentions, much like several of the trivial sources you initially posted. An article about a person who played in the tourney where the tourney itself is mentioned in a single sentence is trivial. Good for you if you finally found something with more substance. Go add them to the article. Otto4711 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References and external links have been added. The Cardplayer article and the CBS News article provide multiple non-trivial media mentions. (The CBS News article is a first-hand account of some people playing in the event, so it's hardly trivial.) Rray 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 03:46Z

Dade Christian School

edit
Dade Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, directory listing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Master's Academy

edit
The Master's Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

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

The result was Delete and protect from recreation, NN bio. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Wee Loon

edit
Chin Wee Loon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has been speedy 4 times, so I'll bring it here to get more eyes on it. The claim of notability is that he placed 4th in a competition for United Malays National Organisation. He says that is notable because the top 3 were Malaysian and he's Chinese apparently. No clue what this competition was or anything related to it, but it's not verifiable and it doesn't seem very notable. Metros232 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is "Echo of Independence", which is an annual event to invite young malaysians to get involved in politics. Tonytypoon 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wikipedia is supposed to report the truth and nothing but the truth. If you guys insist on deleting the truth of the article, then by all means do it, but remember that it is not an easy achievement for a Chinese to qualify for the top 10 in an UMNO-organized competition, moreover he is the only Chinese who participated out of more than 250 Malays. Melvincwl 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedia is not supposed to "report" anything at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a news desk. Third, according to the article, 8 out of the top 10 were Malays; Chin Wee Loon wasn't the only foreigner to win. In fact, that means 20% of the winners were not Malays. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm even more convinced now that this is a vanity article - Tonytypoon has added images of someone called Melvin standing in front of Belfast City Hall and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland to these two articles (which, of course, have been reverted). I don't know whether "Melvin" (seen here: Image:P1010171.JPG and Chin Wee Loon (seen here: Image:AABnWL.jpg) are the same person, but if so, this looks like a case of sock puppetry, as well as vanity. CLW 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, Melvincwl's user page was blanked a short time after I posted that [93]. Metros232 17:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete all the photos and keep Image:AABnWL.jpg - the only useful photo. I have wanted to delete the other vanity photos but only the administrator can do that. By the way, I do NOT have problem of status quo of Malaysians, since I am from Hong Kong. This is NOT conspiracy theory because it is also written in United Malays National Organisation "being a major proponent of Malay nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu and some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges" Tonytypoon 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have a source that says "The top3 won because they're Malays and the 4th place Chinese guy was just awarded 4th just to 'divide the cake' as it was put" or is this just your own idea of why he was only 4th? Metros232 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kafziel, firstly, thank you for your welcome. Secondly, what I mean by reporting is presenting an article which is true. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and as such the public has every right to view certain information pertaining to certain people of interest. And by the way, it comes with a reference with a video clip on an official website which can be accessed anytime. You cannot put in a mathematical way that 20% of the winners were not Malays. Did you know that out of 250 Malays who joined the competition, there is only one Chinese who was in the competition and yet, he made it into the top 10. It is certainly not an easy task for a Chinese to get in what more to win 4th placing. I hope you will get my point. Melvincwl 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear CLW, it is not a vanity article. I can give you more examples of vanity articles in Wikipedia if you want. There are many inaccurate facts in many articles I have read and yet, why is my article which is purely true, is scrutinized this way. Melvincwl 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do provide me with your list of examples of Wikipedia vanity articles (at my talk page, not here, since here is not the place for this) and I'll take a look through them. Thanks, CLW 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xia Xue, Kenny Sia These articles are examples of real vanity. Tonytypoon 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not here - if you want me to look through these and give my opinion, please do so at my talk page. And the structure of this subthread very much suggests that Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are one and the same person. Please could you confirm whether or not this is the case?
Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are different people. Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are defending Chin Wee Loon's profile very hard for those out there who does not understand the significance of the importance of this profile page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvincwl (talk • contribs)
I am from Hong Kong. Tonytypoon 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - in order to clarify this, please could you clarify your relationship to Melvincwl? Thanks, CLW 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear all, I just want to put it this way that if Wikipedia does not present a true article which comes with adequate references, I do not think it is a credible encyclopedia after all. And somebody mentioned that this is a conspiracy theory. What an immature way of discrediting an article. There is no conspiracy theory at all. It is not even an article of opinion nor speculation. Who wants to waste time in making a mockery or puppetry out of somebody who is credible?

Delete as above. I checked Factiva - could not find any mention of this young gentleman in the archives of the New Straits Times or in the general press archive. It does seem like a personally or locally significant achievement for a Malaysian Chinese to place 4th in an UMNO contest, given Ketuanan Melayu, but that does not automatically make it encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Metros232, while I appreciate that you had your name published in newspapers, this is indeed an extraordinary achievement for Chin Wee Loon. It is at least not typical vanity profiles such as Xia Xue. I just do not get it why Wikipedia allows profiles such as Xia Xue when it is clearly vanity. She does not even have ample references to substantiate her facts. Melvincwl 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Bwithh, you cannot just rely on Factiva or News Straits Times. Do you know that the New Straits Times is involved in plagiarism as well? I am surprised you still use that paper as a source of information. Melvincwl 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all the news sources in Factiva (10,000 international sources; 120 newswires), not just New Straits Times (I specified NST as it's the leading English language newspaper in Malaysia). Did you know that the New York Times has been involved in plagiarism? I am shocked, just shocked anyone uses that paper as a source of information. Bwithh 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kafziel, this discussion will not be done unless those scrutinizing this article understands the significance of the article. I believe there is even bias on those who are determining whether an article should be deleted or not deleted. The profile page is now edited to be as concise and precise as possible. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not teaching people about hard work and stuff like that, what that has been presented in the article is very true and comes with references. Thank you and I hope this article will be permanent in Wikipedia. Of course, if anybody feels there is any correction or error, the article is open to editing any time. Thank you very much.
And is Melvincwl the same person as Chin Wee Loon? CLW 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in deed. Tonytypoon 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look at WP:COI and WP:AB. Kafziel Talk 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict...) Then why does Melvincwl always refer to Chin Wee Loon in the third person? This is a clear case of WP:COI - assuming that Tonytypoon and Melvincwl are indeed two different people (I'll assume good faith here), all the edits to the Chin Wee Loon article are either vanity edits (i.e. by the subject of the article, without disclosing that the subject and the editor is one and the same person) or edits made by the classmate of the subject of the article. CLW 20:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - apologies for my use of the term "vanity" which was not intended to cause any offence. If you check my edit list you'll see that I've recently returned from a very long wikibreak. The term "vanity" was previously an accepted term for edits made by the subject of an article to their own article, but I note that the consensus is now that this term should be avoided. I'll take care to avoid using it in future! CLW 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest with regard to the editing. Since I am doing this objectively. This is not an autobiography. Tonytypoon 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to you to decide whether or not it's a conflict of interest. Obviously you wouldn't think it was. And it is an autobiography if Melvincwl is the subject (which he is) and edits the article (which he has done). Kafziel Talk 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell Melvincwl in the usertalk page. Tonytypoon 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling both of you right here. The conflict of interest applies to you, and the autobiography applies to him. Further talk page notes aren't necessary, as the article will be deleted. Kafziel Talk 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:AB "This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." If you finally decide that classmate is conflict of interest, fair enough. But I need to clarify that this is not possible conflict of interest, as I am a student, I don't earn any income, any publication, and I don't have any business.Tonytypoon 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you earning money. It's about writing an article about your friend. The close relationships section of COI clarifies this. Kafziel Talk 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. Classmate is not "too close" Tonytypoon 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? We're quoting guidelines now? Okay, then how about this one: "If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article." Kafziel Talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to edit anymore. I simply want to keep the Chin Wee Loon article like this. Tonytypoon 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now, the article can't be kept. However, you are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia within the scope of the guidlines and I hope this minor setback won't discourage you from contributing in the future. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this article. It has more than enough notable explainations and references substantiating it. Why nobody ever bothered to view the video under references? I did not see any comments on this. It is not like writing an article blindly. Besides, how sure are you that other contributors never have a COI with the subject? As Wikipedia is a free and open software, anybody can edit it without even informing the admin about any COI. For one thing, I can be editing about someone else's profile and tell that person later that I was the one editing it. Or alternatively, that someone can be told in advance that I am going to edit his profile and he agrees to it. What have the admin got to say about this issue? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvincwl (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable bio article. Also, the language used fails WP:NPOV, suggesting that this is also a vanity article. Even after reading the diatribes above, I can't see how this qualifies as notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. =Axlq 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. This whole debate is nonsense and should be closed immediately. Danny Lilithborne 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • United Malays National Organisation "is known as being a major proponent of Malay nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu and some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright." The words "is known as" is also credible information here. So this is not a bizarre claim/ conspiracy theory. This is a real phenomenon. Tonytypoon 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia already has articles on this issue - indeed the key one has been a featured article on the front page of Wikipedia. That doesn't make Chin Wee Loon encyclopedically notable with reliable sources to back this assertion up Bwithh 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the key one has been a featured article on the front page" is vague for wikipedia readers to understand. . The Malay nationalism article is not available. Therefore, having Chin Wee Loon in a seperate page is safest way to exemplify the Malay nationalism. Tonytypoon 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already specifically named the featured article twice in my discussion above. You're welcome to start an article on Malay nationalism. We already have Early Malay nationalism plus the substantial Category:Politics of Malaysia. Your assertion that Chin Wee Loon "exemplifies" the issue of Malay nationalism won't survive very long on any of these pages without supporting reliable sources Bwithh 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It says in Malaysian Malaysia"Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour." The "favour" here is to let the Malays win the 1st to 3rd places, and have Chin Wee Loon settle in the 4th place. Tonytypoon 08:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- * How can you claimed that this article is not notable enough when even a citizen from Hong Kong sees its significance. There must be something important in this article, that is why he highlighted and posted it in Wikipedia. By the way, I did not in whatever way instruct him to write about me. This is purely his effort in bringing up the page. If the admin thinks this article is not fit to be in the software, so be it. I hope the admin will weigh the pros and cons before deleting this article. But this discussion has changed my perception about how Wikipedia is being handled by its patrollers. I can sense that some of the patrollers are indeed immature and not thoughtful and analytical enough in criticising an article. If you were in Malaysia or have experienced the Malaysian way of life, I can certainly guarantee you that you will know what is going on. And please do not just turn a blind eye on it just because one is not notable enough. He or she may not be notable to you but to some of the population in a country, it matters very much. This is my last post and I hope everybody will be liberal enough to see some of the points that I have raised. Thank you all.

  • I've re-tagged this as a speedy. There's no point at all keeping this AfD open, it's just a waste of time and effort which could be more usefully directed elsewhere. And it unquestionably meets speedy criteria. 86.134.24.74 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second the above motion to speedy, but I've been so involved in this that I'm not going to do it myself. Anyone else? CLW 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all for speedying this. I was seconds away from doing it when I first nominated it, but then I noticed all the speedys in the past and figured it's time to actually show the user there is a consensus to delete this. I think there's an overwhelming consensus here for delete and would support a speedy delete (obviously I won't carry it out myself as the nominator). Metros232 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflict...) P.S. The nominator's reason for bringing this here instead of speedying again was to get some extra input - I think this has been achieved now! CLW
    • I have reverted the Speedy Tagging (second time). The speedy tagging by an anon IP was out of process. The reason given - that 4 people in afd had asked for Speedy Delete and therefore the afd is a waste of time - is not sufficient. If a majority of people !voted in this afd discussion for Delete/Speedy Delete, and there is no significant opposition, than an admin may decided to invoke WP:SNOW. Repeated tagging of the article as speedy delete by an anonymous IP who dismisses this afd discussion as a "waste of time" is improper Bwithh 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:COI and all of the above. Akihabara 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just reinstated the speedy tag before seeing Bwithh's comment above, but I do feel that it should indeed be speedied. With regard to the "waste of time" comment, I don't think that Metros232's nomination in order to get more opinions was a waste of time - I think it was a very sensible move. However, in view of the opinions above, I do fear that keeping the AfD going would be a waste of time. CLW 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, that's what WP:SNOW is supposed to be used for - CSD tagging is a separate process. Bwithh 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding: Once an AfD has started it is improper to re-instate the speedy delete tag. If there are "speedy delete" votes, here, then only an admin can decide to end the discussion early and delete it. I voted to speedy delete it, so did others, that's enough. Generally when I speedy-tag something, an admin deletes the article within minutes. Notice how no admin pays attention to a speedy tag on an article that's involved in AfD. Leave it off, people. =Axlq 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, let me try to understand this. Melvincwl is in Malaysia. He and Tonytypoon are classmates. But Tonytypoon is in Hong Kong? How does that work? Delete, utterly non-notable, should have been speedied and salted. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Winning 4th place in this competition is not notable. If the 4th place winner was a Malay, you would agree that he is not notable. The claim to notability in this case lies with your point of view that he overcame unfair odds. That's not acceptable for an encyclopedia. It's impressive. It's heartwarming. It's not notable by Wikipedia's definition. Leebo86 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable winner of non-notable competition. The article's existence is founded on POV, as Leebo86 points out. Resolute 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every single freaking tiny addenda to Malay pop culture or politics is no more notable than every single freaking tiny addenda to American pop culture or politics. This guy is as non-notable as the loser of the Dirt Plug, Arkansas water board commissioner election. --Charlene 01:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete placing 4th in a single competition is not notable.-- danntm T C 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Chin Wee Loon were notable, there would be independent news sources provided explaining how he is notable. So far, no such sources have been provided at all. The only supporters of this article appear to be the subject and his classmate. How did the classmate find out about the subject coming in 4th place in the UMNO competition? Was it published in the newspapers in Hong Kong (where the classmate is from) or Ireland (where the classmate is a student now), or did the subject tell the classmate about it? This article appears to have significant problems with verifiability, reliable sources, and conflict of interest. Please note that the existence or non-existence of this article is not going to have much effect on ethnic relations in Malaysia, but if the proponents of this article are trying to convince us that the subject was relegated to 4th place in the competition (instead of winning) because of Malay nationalism and discrimination against Chinese, they will have to explain why the subject bothered to enter a contest sponsored by a Malay nationalist political party in the first place and why they gave him 4th place out of 250, placing him ahead of hundreds of Malays. --Metropolitan90 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.First of all, I am Malaysian and I agree with the race barrier that do exist in a minor way in Malaysia, but then again, which country don't? Anyway, in accordance to wiki guide, winning the fourth place have no significance what so ever in my opinion. Second of all, knowing Chin Wee Loon a.k.a. melvincwl a.k.a. cwl personally, this article is strongly more of a vanity page than that of a notability article. He likes doing stuff like that with the mentality that it would give him a strong boost of sorts in the local political scene. That is a well known fact among peers. I steongly think this page should be deleted. Sorry Tony, it is the sad fact. I can verify Tonypoon is a seperate entity from Melvin but I should also point out that every defending point for the prevention of deletion of this article are all written by Melvin himself. Why would somebody defend his own autobiography? If there's significancy in the statements, many others would procceed to verify this and prevent it from deleting. Eugenekoh306
  • DELETE - I'm Malaysian Chinese; I've never heard of this guy (not that that matters), he doesn't represent me or my race, and I'm telling him to knock it off with the using of Wikipedia as a vanity page to promote his political/personal aims. Do you realize at 34 kbs and growing, this debate is at least x20 bigger than the article we're discussing? If Chin Wee Loon or his proxies are actually defending this article from deletion, its quite plainly a conflict of interest. Delete it for non-notability, 4th place is clearly not notable. To suggest notability by claiming that he was shafted by the competition, (implied racism here and in the article) is disingenous and dishonest. Was there an outcry that he was cheated out of 1st, 2nd or 3rd place? Did he return his 4th place award in protest? The answer is no. This is a self-serving vanity page. --Eqdoktor 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Britannia Airways Flight BY226A. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:15Z

Britannia flight 3142

edit
Britannia flight 3142 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article and Britannia Airways Flight BY226A both appeared around the end of November. I am the author of the latter article and was unaware at the time of the article I am now proposing for deletion. On 14 December 2006, User:Scott Wilson, presumably having been astute enough to spot the two similar articles, proposed their merger and posted notices on each. I posted messages on each discussion page, stating that I believed the Britannia flight 3142 article to be wrongly named, and subsequent web searches convince me of this as I also stated on both discussion pages on 20 December. There have been no other comments made and I have now merged some details from the 3142 page to my BY226A page. Therefore, on the grounds that a) Britannia flight 3142 is wrongly named and b) all useful material from it has been merged, I am proposing that the page should be deleted Emeraude 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1. BY226A is the correct name. 2. Not particularly notable? Airliner breaks into three but no one killed. Seems noteworthy to me. 3. Redirect may cause problems for anyone looking for details of the crash of flight 3142 in Buenos Aires (see my comments in talk page for BY226A here) which is why I suggested delete.Emeraude 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The redirect's history should certainly be kept in some form since it contains a history of content which was used and merged with another article, deleting the history is a violation of the GFDL. Indeed, a consensus to overrule that requirement would be invalid. Therefore, if you want the redirect gone, the page should be history merged first. Regarding the article itself, that should be kept since crash landings of large jetliners are definitely enormously perilous for a large number of people and of significant media and general interest, so I cannot understand a call to delete that thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close, No AfD is required to redirect the article. JYolkowski // talk 15:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Force Football

edit
Chicago Force Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article exists as Chicago Force (football). This is a duplicate article. Pinkkeith 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:17Z

Conservative Democratic Alliance

edit
Conservative Democratic Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Sorry but I don't see anything notable whatsoever in this article. It seems, for the most part, to consist of a series of descriptions of the organisation's key personnel (none of whom seem to have held any sort of political office whatsoever), letters they have written to national newspapers and dinners that they have held over the past few years. I have looked long and hard for more information and have discovered only two actual news stories about them - both from the BBC news website in 2002 noting their split from the Monday Club - hardly headline grabbing stuff.--Edchilvers 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't seem like a notable group at all, despite the fact that the article tries to make them look very notable. No non-trivial coverage by any reliable sources and nothing to show really notability. Jayden54 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If The Independent, The Guardian and Searchlight magazine, in which there have all been non-trivial mentions linked in the article, are not reliable sources I'm not sure what are. As they are all linked in the article itself, and Ed Chilvers has previously been a collaborator with the leader of the CDA, although this has fallen sour I'm not sure why he is unaware of this fact. Surely, surely, he would not run a bad faith AfD. JASpencer 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The CDA is a prominent Conservative group which has overtaken the old Monday Club in trumpetting traditional Toryism. It is well known, a major irritant to Conservative Party "modernisers", and its Chairman often appears in media interviews. As User:JASpencer highlights, EdChilvers has been active since he arrived on Wiki in attacking the CDA's chairman and just about anyone else involved with them. Bad faith AfD? You bet. Chelsea Tory 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well show me the evidence. How is it a thorn in the side of the Tory party? How is it influential? As I have said I am always willing to be proved wrong as long as it meets the Wiki criteria which, at the moment in my opininon it doesn't--Edchilvers 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JASpencer's citation of references. Ground Zero | t 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am always willing to be proved wrong but from my POV the article in its current form simply does not match the WP criteria for inclusion. This is a political organisation we are talking about here and yet it reads like a Euology. If it is so influential where is the critisism? it strikes me that this article has been written by supporters of the CDA itself as a means of bigging itself up. The point I am basically trying to make here is that local 'Conservative Club' organisations dont get articles on Wiki and yet they seem far more influential on Tory policy than this bunch--Edchilvers 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep - this article needs to be completely rewritten, and fast. Ed Chilvers is right when he says "the article in its current form simply does not match the WP criteria for inclusion" and "it reads like a euology". If there is noone who comes forward and does so, I'd definitely vote delete. There are clearly interested editors here willing to get involved - why don't they take a long hard look at the article, look at articles for comparable political organisations, and get editing? --SandyDancer 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::It is always somewhat laughable when people make ridiculous sock puppet claims. Even more laughable when they make such accusations using an IP sock themselves! You amuse me. --SandyDancer 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is you that needs investigating - for evading bans on anonymous editing imposed by Arbcom - see here. --SandyDancer 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it? Starting AFDs due to content dispute might be inappropriate, I grant you. But making comments on content in an already-initiated AFD is OK, surely? Let me clarify my viewpoint - it seems to me that an article which complies with Wikipedia's standard could be written about this organisation - but to date, hasn't been. Users who want the article to stay should make some commitment to improving it. --SandyDancer 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point on the content. Thank you for clarifying your position on keeping the article. JASpencer 09:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have become involved here in a roundabout way because I created a brief biographical entry for Mr Smith as a useful bridge between the significent libel decision of Keith-Smith v Williams and his political activities which, although they are diametrically opposed to my personal views, are of general interest and frequently featured in the leading anti-fascist journal Searchlight. Mr Chilvers is actively seeking to have that biog deleted together with this linked article. In common with Mr Spencer I am concerned by the involvement of Mr Chilvers in this AfD. On his own admission he is a former friend and associate of Mr Smith who has since fallen out with him, and that raises the possibility of bad faith. Perhaps he would care to comment? James Loughton 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we have an article on Smith and the CDA then we have to have one on Gregory Lauder-Frost. The reason we dont have one on Gregory Lauder-Frost is because it was deleted by Brad Patrick (head of Wiki legal) after Mr Lauder-Frost threatened legal action against myself and the Wikipedia foundation because he objected to certain aspects of his private life mentioned therein. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if the article stays but I do believe that an article on any political movement requires balance which at the moment this article does not have.--Edchilvers 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can see, the facts he objected to being stated in the article weren't "aspects of his private life" - they weren't private in the least, and in fact were matters of public record. --SandyDancer 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's avoid personal spats, shall we? If EdChilvers and SandyDancer think the article needs editing there's nothing to stop them from editing it. One assumes that the previous editors are more-or-less happy with the content so demanding that they make unspecified alterations isn't really on. Maybe Ed and Sandy would like to cite examples of passages to which they particularly object, stating why they object to themJames Loughton 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I largely disagree with this organisation's politics (although I can sympathise with some of their views), but I disapprove equally of politically-motivated deletions. If it was as long and exhaustively detailed as GLF's entry became at one point I could understand, but it is a succinct and concise piece of work on a group which represents a fairly widely-held point of view (in certain circles). RobinCarmody 23:38, 30 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, but rewrite. Remove material that lacks citation and remove the laundry lists of who went to what meeting. --Duke of Duchess Street
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there's nothing there worth merging. Feel free to add them to the List of masts and recreate the below redlinks as redirects. Proto::► 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommerup transmitter

edit
Tommerup transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hadsten Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hove Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jyderup Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nibe Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Røde Kro Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Videbæk Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Varde-Nordenskov Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viborg-Sparkær Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hedensted Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vordingborg Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Anonymous editor deprodded with comment "A tower, which is over 300 metres tall should not be deleted from Wikipedia!" None of the Danish towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO.}} Ohconfucius 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:19Z

Sorboni Banerjee

edit
Sorboni Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page does not establish why the subject is worthy of a Wiki entry. Unless subject achieves notoriety in the field, the page should be deleted. Burghboy80 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:20Z

Bob Opsahl

edit
Bob Opsahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Entry does not establish proper reason for being listed on Wiki. Other than being a local news anchor, this is an unremarkable entry. Burghboy80 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:21Z

Time To Kill

edit
Time To Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Plot summary of unpublished novel by the person who created the article; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball SUBWAYguy 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, and suggest participants focus their constructive energies on the Chat room article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:25Z

Mmocc

edit
Mmocc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

'MMOCC' is a neologism. Also, this may have been a self-promotional article for mmoccforum.com, although an anonymous user did remove the link. Rhobite 16:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO TSO1D 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. This is not in wide use at all, and I doubt it even appears in any dictionary. Jayden54 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information is very beneficial to players and staff of MMOCCs and know about them. The term is not in the dictionary because it is a web acronym, is the correct definition for MMORPG in the dictionary? MMOCCForum was linked because it is a wonderful resource and the discussion is based on MMOCCs. It includes help information regarding MMOCCs, links to developing and major MMOCCs. The creator of this article doesn't own MMOCCForum, they just linked the forum due to it's very useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.97.213 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 December 2006.
  • Keep - This information was very useful and WikiPedia is built to have information on EVERYTHING, so you can go to hell about the dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.119.128 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 December 2006.
  • Keep - Is Lindsay Lohan in the dictionary? Nope - but she's on WikiPedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.109.136 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 December 2006.
    • Merits of the articles are to be judged individually. Just because some other completely unrelated topic happens to be in Wikipedia rather than dictionary doesn't mean this can be. Try picking a term that could conceivably be in a dictionary for your analogy next time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --- RockMFR 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason why this page would be deleted. The information is valuable to those who dont know what an mmocc is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • If you don't see a reason why this article would be deleted, how do you respond to the nominator's claims that this is a neologism (which we tend to avoid unless they're proven widespread and well-known)? And think of it this way - you wouldn't want people to learn terms that no one uses. Internet chat is internet chat. I don't know anyone who uses the term "MMOCC". Before you say "but they should be using the term", remember that it's not Wikipedia's mission to push new terms and new concepts either; the material has to be remarkable and widely known before getting here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information was very useful to me in finding teenage chat communities across the internet. For example, Coke Music - I've never heard of it until today and discovered one of the neatest chat rooms I've ever encountered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.172.63.214 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. The concept is interesting and remarkable (yes, graphical chat rooms with avatars exist and are popular); however, I have never ever heard the term "MMOCC" used anywhere to refer to this sort of chat places. For an Internet-related term, 223 distinct Google hits is a pathetic hit count. There's nothing really remarkable in the article that could not be found in other articles on these topics. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MMOCC shoud be kept as it is very resourcefull. If you go on sites such as;WowWeb Designs, or Pixel joint, and many other online community sites, the term MMOCC' is used many a times. It is not simply trying to put the acronym 'MMOCC' out there, as it is already used, but for those people who do not knnow what an MMOCC is, the artical can be very usefull for finding that right online chat, or just research in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.163.13 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep - If this article goes, who's to say that the MMORPG article sholdn't go too? I'd never heard of the term 'MMORPG' until this year. What is your problem? This is a very informative article. I can think of loads of articles that shouldn't be on wikipedia, as they mean absolutely nothing. Why should Habbo Hotel stay on Wikipedia? It's not in the dictionary. And I'm sure the word 'Habbo' was relatively new when it was launched. I can think of plenty of people who haven't got the faintest idea what a 'Habbo' is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.237.0 (talk • contribs).
    • We're not, I repeat, not discussing the deletion of Habbo Hotel, which is demonstrably a very notable chat/MMOG site. (Go Finland! Yay! =) What we have a beef is the term MMOCC, which no one seems to have used until very very recently. All the while the term "MMORPG" is very established, has been discussed in scholarly journals of many sorts (while "MMOCC" only turns up completely unrelated hits). Note this, however: "Habbo" is a fictional term. It refers to the content of the games. "MMOCC" is a "real" term used to describe a real-world construct. That makes it inappropriate unless it's actually famous. Wikipedia has a problem with original research; it's all good and appropriate that "Habbo" is a redirect to Habbo Hotel because the game itself describes this fictional construct, and as such, we're not publishing new terms, just reporting on an established term that is used in Habbo Hotel. However, "MMOCC" label points to a real-world thing; what's the source for that term? How did it came to be? Who actually uses the term? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who actually uses the term? Go check on habbo chat clients who uses it... Which at any given time usually has over 10,000 users logged in. Is this huge in comparison to myspace? No. Is it still in large use? Actually yes it is. Anyone who actually takes the time to play the game knows it as an mmocc. check. mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I call it a graphical chat with multiplayer game elements. Habbo.com calls it a "virtual community", and the term "MMOCC" isn't (according to Google) found on the website. I don't know what the users call it, but I'd wager few call it a "MMOCC". Like the nominator says, we're not concerned with what the players think the thing itself 'is; we're more concerned with this question alone: who calls it a "MMOCC"?
      If you want an easier, completely (yes, completely, without any sarcastic undertones - but hopefully strong enough to drive point across) rhetorical example: I could declare Habbo Hotel a WasteOfTime, and write a Wikipedia article about WastesOfTime similar to Habbo. (Remember, again, this is a completely rhetorical example. As an IRCer, I know that the only thing that deserves the name of "waste of time" is IRC. =) I could use a lot of fancy words that would define how WastesOfTime operate. Now, assume you have been a Habbo user - or just an ordinary MMOG user - all through its existence, and have never heard of Habbo referred to it as such. Wouldn't you, in that case, be terribly interested of who came up with this term "WasteOfTime", and who uses it in scholarly context, and is it truly as widespread as the few loud proponents claim? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term is even on Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mmocc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk • contribs).
      • Anyone can submit content to Urban Dictionary. It's not considered a particularly trustworthy site when evaluating popularity of a particular term. Especially one that was submitted in October 2 and has whopping 7 votes since then. If you can find a source that satisfies neologism guidelines and reliable source guidelines, that's good, but I'm afraid tons of stuff gets deleted if their sole claim of fame is an Urban Dictionary entry. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A helpful comment for newbies: Please sign your messages. You can do that by hitting the signature button on the toolbar while the cursor is at the end of the comment, or typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. This makes telling apart peoples' comments much easier. The bot tries to fix this, but it's not omnipotent. Thank you for your consideration. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a great resource, why would anyone be so petty as to remove this.. idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.142.89 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • A great resource about a term that few people appear to use. As it's not widely used, we hope it'd be obvious why it is being considered for deletion. Also, I kind of hoped it would be obvious that insulting people is not really helpful toward making people understand your point of view. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing more than self-aggrandizing drivel for an unremarkable website. Burghboy80 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely worthless neologism. This is adequately covered in Massively multiplayer online game and Virtual world. Google shows almost no links for this phrase. - hahnchen 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources at all. The preceding discussion cites no sources. Doing the research myself, I can find no sources. There is no evidence that a concept of a "Mass Multiplayer Online Chat Community" has actually been documented anywhere at all. The concept hasn't even been documented by its creator(s). They haven't even published their own documentation for it on web pages of their own. The article is original research, the primary source documentation of a concept that has not yet been acknowledged by anyone and become part of the corpus of human knowledge. That is forbidden here. Arguments that other things are not in dictionaries are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 16:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:26Z

National Frisbee Day

edit
National Frisbee Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No indication that it is a "real" day. Assuming it is, no indication given of notability, especially as it has only happened once. A prod was added previously. TheParanoidOne 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Earl Mindell. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:27Z

Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible

edit
Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An encyclopedic article can not be created about this subject. SERSeanCrane 17:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close, AfDs aren't required to create redirects. JYolkowski // talk 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Peak Regional Preserve

edit
Mission Peak Regional Preserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Mission Peak Regional Preserve should be a redirect to Mission Peak, a relatively complete article. Alison Chaiken 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WSAM-FM

edit
WSAM-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Hoax; violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Mhking 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as attack article after finding this little tidbit. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion removed
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (there is support for merging/redirecting separately from the AFD). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:31Z

Singil Station

edit
Singil Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Per precedent on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station, nominating all other station stops on Seoul Subway Line 5. Most are the same as Yeouinaru Station: 1 line with no other content (including pictures, while free, I also think do not provide value). Only two of these articles have anything beyond one line: Gimpo Airport Station and Omokgyo Station, of which only 1 introduces a source, but the source doesn't mention the subway station at all. I further think all these should be turned into redirects, any content included on Seoul Subway Line 5 (including images) and the table de-wikilinked. MECU≈talk 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

--MECU≈talk 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was tempted to speedy close this myself, as the nominator didn't want the articles to be deleted. However, I want to get a feel for what others are thinking here first. Speedy close as the nominator wants to redirect all of these and not delete. Failing that, Merge and/or redirect all of these to Seoul Subway Line 5. JYolkowski // talk 19:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - we don't need separate articles on each station (not even enough information available except a single sentence). Jayden54 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of equal importance to stations in London and New York. Redirection would therefore be racist. Nathanian 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I randomly found my way to 5 (New York City Subway service) which I would equate to an equal level as Seoul Subway Line 5, and looked at the station articles there. Of the random 5 I looked at, they included a link or two and most had more significant text than "This is a station on line X." There were some claims such as "will be rebuilt" and other items that should be sourced/referenced, which may be covered by the external link(s) on the articles. I don't think "racist" is a valuable label to be applied here. Regardless, I believe the most damaging argument for this is that even the Korean Wikipedia articles are small (as reported in the previous AFD mentioned above), which isn't what one would expect if these are of significant more value than an English language version. I listed them as AFDs because they are articles, someone has spent time in creating them with the templates/infoboxes, and I didn't know where else to list them, though perhaps I could have just said they should be deleted as the previous AFD I requested all related articles (ie, these mentioned above) to be included (but didn't list them, so perhaps some people didn't vote with that in mind or for due process matters, it makes sense to give each of these their own representation). --MECU≈talk 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, got to go with the eventualist position on subway stations. I read something about "reversing bad precedents" - making subway station articles open to a higher level of scrutiny is not a good idea. These particular articles contain templates and infoboxes which add decent context, particularly hangeul translations and surrounding stations (I was involved in that respect). If this is the way things are going, the battle against station articles could get bloody. Deizio talk 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (Cartoon Network)

edit
Monk (Cartoon Network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

hoax series; does not exist; violates WP:NFT Mhking 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and protect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:37Z

Robot Rage

edit
Robot Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously deleted within AFD (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot Rage), speedily deleted 3 other times (See here), this page was recreated. However, it contains no assertion of notability or any sources that indicate why it's necessary to have a page on this game. It reads essentially like a game-guide, as well, which is not what Wikipedia is for (If there's a GameFaqs-a-pedia, maybe this should go there). Was formerly a prod, but was removed by an account with no other edits. As nominator, I say delete. User:Logical2uTalk 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:39Z

Emysphilia

edit
Emysphilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Daniel Schechner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unlikely-sounding fetish. No result for either of the published sources on Google, nor in the British Library or the Library of Congress catalogs. No results for the author "Daniel Schechner" either outside of Wikipedia mirrors and forums. If anyone can turn up sources or verify the existing ones, I'll withdraw the AfD. Demiurge 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus; suggest creating the Cherry Springs article so this can be merged there per WP:LOCAL. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:43Z

Cherry Springs Dance Hall

edit
Cherry Springs Dance Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I prodded this, but the creator indicated a desire to remove the prod tag on the article's talk, so I'm switching to AFD. The dance hall is probably not notable. I'm not sure whether to apply WP:N or WP:CORP to determine that, but I don't think the article meets either. Kchase T 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Cherry Springs Dance Hall is of cultural and historical significance to both the state of Texas, and to the history of country music and popular music. It has been a reknown Texas gathering spot for almost 120 years, having originated in the cattle drive years, and continuing through to the present day. It served as a 1950's incubator for the birthing of rock and roll, rockabilly, and the transitioning of country music from localized "hillbilly" interest to world-wide popularity. I do not believe my sources to be trivial, even if they are online links. Elvis Day By Day is the online version of a book meticulously researched and produced by Peter Guralnick, a well-respected music historian of the last few decades. Maile66
  • Keep - cites provided appear to demonstrate a case. An editor with more experience in local (or country) history could probably come up with even better ones. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Article is in poor shape, but it seems the hall might be noteworthy, if the Honky Tonk Texas site's claims are accurate. However, I note Elvis Day By Day only mentions the hall in passing, and the second reference provided doesn't appear to mention it at all. I'm not comfortable !voting keep based on a single source. Would like to see at least one more significant mention from a reliable independent source. Shimeru 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Source Added - I'll admit I could use some guidance in as much as this is my first time putting up a page. But I did add a source link from a book Geronimo Trevino III’s Dance Halls and Last Calls A History of Texas Country Music Dance Halls in Texas, 1800’s – Present day. - Maile66 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, unencyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous after surviving a near-fatal event

edit
List of people who became famous after surviving a near-fatal event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Its impossible to define who should be in this category - how is "famous" defined? What counts as a "near-fatal event". Lots of POV issues here. See the related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have been involved in incidents resulting in death and the previous AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people who became famous for surviving a deadly event Gwernol 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (general) I honestly don't see these as insurmountable questions, and many of the answers are self-evident. Famous can be changed to notable. Lydon and Slash were presumably famous before the cited events, and Lydon was not actually involved in the event. We can determine the reason someone became notable quite easily, as it will be evident on their article, as established by whatever facts and evidence have been submitted to comply with WP:BIO. The correlation of the event and fame is not an issue, as there are different sections. After means not before, ie not famous 1 second before the near-fatal event. The definition of near fatal is also pretty evident from the pages listed - either people died in the event (9/11, Titanic etc), or it was something a human could be reasonably expected to have died from (falling 33000 feet to the ground, accidentally going over Niagara Falls). I think this page is fairly easy to maintain. Deizio talk 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:47Z

Alphabetical List of Star Trek Characters

edit
Alphabetical List of Star Trek Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Many folks on this unwieldy list don't meet WP:N. Worthwhile material is redundant with the existence of List of Star Trek characters. True, "List of Star Trek characters" lacks convenience of being alphabetized, but I reckon folks are more interested in seeing characters listed by series than by name. --EEMeltonIV 19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Guitar Hero. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:50Z

Guitar Hero III

edit
Guitar Hero III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article lacks any first party sources and the two sources it does have indicate that Guitar Hero II will be going multiplatform and that Guitar Hero III more Harmonix games will be made eventually. The information on the article itself is pure speculation and contains no factual data regarding the potential game itself. There is quite literally no information about the game aside from a VERY vague release date as reported by a third party. While I personally believe there'll probably be a Guitar Hero III, WP:NOT demands that we not treat Wikipedia as a Crystal Ball. Lankybugger 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a reliable source citing a release date. If we delete the article now someone will just re-create it. The series is popular enough that the article name should at least be redirected if not preserved. There have been several speculative edits. I would suggest keeping the page, but protecting it until there is more public information available. - NickSentowski 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps a redirect to Guitar Hero would be sufficient until confirmed, verifiable information has been released? Currently the article is a collection of factoids and common knowledge and while Activision is PLANNING to release more Guitar Hero sequels there's been indications that future Harmonix releases might not be rock-related... I doubt they'd release a Country-themed guitar game as a core-series sequel, for example. Lankybugger 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Lets be realistic about this, and like Nick said, if we simply delete the article it will probably be remade. We really dont need this article though in my opinion, maybe just a short paragraph in the Guitar Hero II article. Cablebfg 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment As this article shows, there's a vast difference between another game being made which uses the Gibson SG Controller released by Red Octane and a true sequel to Guitar Hero II. Harmonix could choose to start releasing the game with subtitles instead of numbers (like Guitar Hero: Metal or Guitar Hero: Country) as the GTA series did with Vice City and San Andreas, they could start to release the games under different "Hero" brands (like Country Hero or Metal Hero) or any other number of naming conventions. Right now there's zero indication that ANY of the proposed additions to the Harmonix lineup will actually be Guitar Hero III. It's PROBABLE that one of the games will be Guitar Hero III but it's not VERIFIABLE. Right now the only information the article contains is information that more games from Harmonix will be produced by the end of next year AND that Guitar Hero II will be going multi-platform. There is zero ACTUAL information about GHIII. I could just as easily make an article about Final Fantasy XIV with just as much information as the GHIII article has. It'll probably be made eventually and we can bet there'll be a dude named Cid in it, but that's speculation. Lankybugger 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not meet crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no info at all for this game other than Activision plans to release a new Guitar Hero game. Also, keeping an article just because it will be created again in the future is not a reason to keep (otherwise we would keep the articles about sporting events 20 years away). TJ Spyke 02:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a game, whether it's released or not. I wouldn't have known about it if not for this page. Isn't learning about things what Wikipedia is for?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoastTOcoast533 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Real game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. No, this is not a "Real game", just a mention of some general promo, with no verifiable encyclopedic content. Perhaps, given the game-chat-blog rumors, this title should redirect to Guitar Hero and be protected against crystal-ball recreation until there are facts, not rumors, published in multiple non-trivial independent sources. Barno 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does need to be deleted. The information is not relevant, and it is a prime example of what Wikipedia should not become. Speculation. --Atm153 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information here is all in the Guitar Hero 2 article, and there's not enough of it at all to justify its own article. A redirect to Guitar Hero 2 should be sufficient. Lateralus1587 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless, of course, I am allowed to create articles on Grand Theft Auto V, Final Fantasy XIV, Resident Evil 6, Gyakuten Saiban 5, etc. --Guess Who 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guitar Hero II or Guitar Hero for now. Wait until more info about the song list (not speculation from fansites) and the game itself is provided. If the game is going to not be released until late 2007-Q1 2008, it's still a long ways from now. Douglasr007 06:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points made above have pushed me to my Delete decision. How can we create an article about a game before the official title or working title is announced? I think this would be a good guideline for deletion. - NickSentowski 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Greeves 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suoerh2 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a link to the IGN page for Guitar Hero PS3. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:55Z

List of top-grossing films shot in Super 35

edit
List of top-grossing films shot in Super 35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Trivial list; one of hundreds which can possibly be derived from boxofficemojo.com. Nonetheless, this is no more notable than a List of top-grossing films shot with Arri cameras or List of top-grossing films shot with Cooke lenses. Super 35 is not a significant correlative factor to box office gross. While it is interesting that more recent films are using the format, it ultimately is a foregone conclusion of the fact that it is a newer technique, it can allow for cost-savings compared to anamorphic format, it uses smaller, faster, and higher quality lenses, and the development of digital intermediate as a method to avoid the compromises of an optical intermediate step. While one can form box office lists based on numerous variables, it ultimately comes down to trivia in all but a few more general cases (top opening weekends, top of all time, top by nation or time period). Wikipedia is not boxofficemojo.com - ie a film earnings database. (I must also confess that I find all this slobbering over box office numbers rather silly to begin with. If I'm not seeing any of that money, why should I care? ;) Probably a symptom of the fact that we're more interested in how the films are made now than what they are about. But that's another debate...) Girolamo Savonarola 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that answers my question. I can support a delete then. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:57Z

Asia Football squads

edit
Asia Football squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Created by Garmsar boy (talk · contribs) a month ago. I'm not sure what the page was intended to be but currently it is a list of players on two national football teams. It provides no context whatsoever, it bares little relation to the article's title and it's redundant with the content of other pages. I'm not disputing that "Asia Football squads" might be a valuable encyclopedic topic but I'd rather have no article than an article that does not come remotely close to being on topic. Pascal.Tesson 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, no reliable sources showing notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-islam.org

edit
Al-islam.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page does not qualify as notable in that there are no independent sources for it. It had a previous nomination over a year ago, which ended in no consensus (here) but the main reason to keep was popularity, which does not qualify under WP:WEB. This is a very similar case to the (currently ongoing) AfD for Rafed.net - a reasonably popular website which lacks any non-trivial independent sources from which to construct an article. Trebor 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (negative) To quote WP:WEB:

Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

To me, that indicates that this article should be a redirect to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which is the parent organization, and their only claim to notability, through a 2003 essay from George Mason University. As currently written, this article is just an advertisement for the website, with multiple images uploaded from the website and multiple links to the same pages on the website. The repeated references to Yahoo! popularity have nothing to do with providing a reliable source of their notability as defined by the WP:WEB criteria ... the same arguments have been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net and apply here for the same reasons, so please read that discussion first ... also review the edit history and talk:Al-islam.org to review attempts by the author to hinder bringing it into line with Wikipedia guidelines. 72.75.72.174 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yahoo and Google's ratings should count for nothing, I've already stated that on the discussion page for this article and explained why. Yahoo's so-called "popularity" rankings are useless, since we don't know how exactly they rate them and it isn't necessarily even based on popularity: "Sites that are most popular with users or the most relevant to the category appear at the top of the site listings" (emphasis added) http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/dir/basics/basics-21.html See also http://www.google.com/technology/index.html Шизомби 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that a more appropriate link for Google Directory (as opposed to Google Search) would be http://www.google.com/dirhelp.html ... they're really two different things, but still, Directory does not satisfy WP:V. --72.75.72.174 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Google link I gave above is for information about their PageRank, which determines "importance" in the Directory. Шизомби 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this site is a reliable source for Shi'a Islam material, Google even raised its page ranking to 8 out of 10. --Striver - talk 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per IP user above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, fails WP:WEB: no convincing independant, third-party, non-trivial coverage has been provided for this website. if such coverage can be found i may reconsider my decision. if such coverage only exists in another language then it should be provided, although it is more appropriate for the article to be present on that language wiki. Google/Yahoo/Alexa rankings/overviews by themselves are not sufficient, and using this as a measure simply opens the floodgates to masses of other similarly oft-visited but non-notable websites which are listed on those websites. some valid arguments presented by 72.75. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide me an example of those articles risking to flood wikipedia, ie, a popular site that is non-notable? --Striver - talk 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's start with one for Harley Quinn, a comic book character with lots of fan websites, any one of which is a "popular site that is non-notable", i.e., does not satisfy WP:WEB:
It is listed in the Top Three on all of the following web directories in the same category, i.e., "Harley Quinn":
  1. "Top > Arts > Comics > Titles > B > Batman > Harley Quinn". Alexa. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. "Directory > Entertainment > Comics and Animation > Comic Books > Titles > DC > Harley Quinn". Yahoo! Directory. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. "Arts > Comics > Titles > B > Batman > Harley Quinn". Google Directory. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Or you can pick any of these websites:
All of them are listed in at least two (if not all three) of the above cited directories, and they are all in the Top Five for each directory in which they are listed, with "Gotham Girls" even coming in first on two of them ... that's four examples of websites on the same subject with the same web directory category, which by your logic and arguments are each sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article based solely on their ranking ... now, do you want me to find any more examples? --72.75.72.174 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a fair comparison.A minor figure is not analog to a religious denomination, maybe DC comics would be analogous to Shi'a Islam. Does any of the Harley_Quinn sites have a Google page rank of 8? A google page rank of 8 says a lot, consider that wikipedia itself has that page rank - so please give a equivalent comparison, a character top-ten list and a world-religion denomination top-ten list are not comparable. The smaller the subject the fewer sites and the more non-notable the site will be, obviously, hence the injustice in the comparison. --Striver - talk 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't think Google's page ranks are significant, and they don't speak to the reliability of the page. Aren't there any signifiant publications you can cite that write about this website? Шизомби 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The example is exactly the kind of "similarly oft-visited but non-notable websites" to which User:Itaqallah was alluding ... the argument is,

harley-quinn.com satisfies WP:WEB because it is one of the most popular Harley Quinn websites according to the rankings on Alexa, Yahoo! Directory, and Google Directory.

That is the crux of your argument about Al-islam.org. And I agree with User:Schizombie that PageRank does not satisfy WP:V or WP:RS for claims of "importance", "popularity", or whatever you want to call it. But allowing it for one means allowing it for all, and what one editor called a "floodgate", I would have called a "slippery slope", which my example demonstrates.
And the example is a perfectly fair one, because "(a) the notability of the subject of the website (i.e., Harley Quinn) has already been established by the fact of having a Wikipedia article, (b) it is "notable" enough that all three web directories have a category for the same "minor character", (c) it is either the highest ranked or is among the top three highest ranked on all three of the most respected web directories, ergo, WP:WEB guidelines should be ignored." ... that is exactly the same as your argument, just substitute "Al-islam.org" and "Shi'a" for "harley-quinn.com" and "Harley Quinn". --72.75.72.174 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, why do you not regard an Google page rank of 8 as a proof of notability? --Striver - talk 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? And here is a swedish short coverage of the site. Another one... and another --Striver - talk 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, I did not mention notability. If this site has not been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources then we can't verify its neutrality. Doesn't matter how popular it is. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, wich one of [94], [95], [96], [97] and [98] is not a "non-trivial coverage"? Remember that the quote from WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Note that the independent sources does not need to be notable. even when the search is closed to only ".edu" sites, it produces almost 1000 hits: [99]. 28 hits on google books [100]. --Striver - talk 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
btw, what do you mean by "we can't verify its neutrality"? --Striver - talk 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duke, help me out, because i don't get it. Why are the above sources not enough to establish notability? --Striver - talk 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus, but recommend merge to Pye Green per WP:LOCAL. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:07Z

Pye Green BT Tower

edit
Pye Green BT Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. As per AfD precedents set by Ohconfucius and listed at: User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, this article fails to assert notability as per WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory, a indiscriminate collection of information or the MB21 transmitter gallery. tgheretford (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incidentally, as an encyclopedia I would have thought that Wikipedia could accomodate an article on every TVG mast/tower in the world, if asked. That is what an encyclopedia does.--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:09Z

Messed Up

edit
Messed Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable webcomic created six months ago. No signs of meeting WP:WEB. COI problems as well, as page created by comic's creator. This promotional piece has gone far enough and should be deleted Aagtbdfoua 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josif has lots of readers on his webcomic and i can get them to vouch for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacman (talk • contribs)

Hey I am the creator of Messed Up and I did not make this article I simply edited it. Me and the author of this article have spoken on msn and we don’t understand this whole Notability thing can you be a bit more specific please?? and we will fix the article as soon as we understand. Oh and just because my comic hasn't been going very long doesn't mean you should delete it. Does it?
P.s. This article isn't finished yet there is still alot to do so don’t assume its crap and try to delete it. In future if I make another article I will finish it before I post it so it doesn't get deleted for not having the right stuff. Josifman 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably the best thing to do is first, read WP:WEB and WP:Notability to review the actual notability guidelines. Also, I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics and you could also read and ask for advice on the project talk page. I think there is a list of the webcomics in the encyclopedia. I do not suggest picking a random webcomic article and using that as a model, since several of the other articles I looked at didn't seem to be well-sourced, but maybe look at the articles that survived deletion, I think there are links to the previous deletion discussions there, and see how they demonstrated notability. I also didn't know until I read the page that there is another wiki project called Comixpedia, so maybe this article would be acceptable there. - Aagtbdfoua 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:11Z

Sorce theory

edit
Sorce theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable pseudoscientific theory. There are only around 500 hits for "Sorce theory" on Google, and hardly any are actual sites, most being posts in forums and such. There are no Appropriate Sources per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision to treat this as a scientific theory, and there aren't enough sources to consider it as an internet phenomenon like Time Cube. Philosophus T 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • E-books are just another form of publication. If you are suggesting these are invalid notable sources because of their form I will happily provide you with a list of varous wiki articles on similar subjects which refer to ebooks/edocuments as their references. Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following is the current criteria for fields of science as described at WP:SCIENCE. I've answered each point as it applies to the article for Sorce Theory.
In general, an item in the field of science is probably notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. It is part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge.
(No)
2. It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator.
(Yes) - At the very least the authors of the publications which are provided in the references. These are all separate individuals. Further members of the scientific community that consider this as a possible explanation can be found at the various forums where this topic is discussed.
3. It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field. (Yes) - The creator of the theory is at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field.
4. It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher
(Yes) - Again, the publications that can be found in the reference section of the Sorce Theory article, are peer-reviewed papers and as such, they can collectively be seen as evidence of the work of 'several' researchers.
5. It is supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
(Not sure)
6. It is previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
(Yes) - I can only speak for myself when I say that I certainly find it interesting and am of the opinion that it is valuable information to have on the Wikipedia, as such I don't see why other people would not also find it interesting. As for historical interest: It is a valid scientific theory first published in 1965... I don't know what more need be said.
7. It is advocated by a prominent persons or for political or religious reasons, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
(No)
8. It is well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
(No)
9. It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
(No)
10. It is notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
(Yes) - The theory recieves constant criticism whenever it is brought up in the scientific community. This can be witnessed from following the various forums that the topic is discussed in where the individuals discussing the matter are also members of the scientific community. Here is just ONE example.
Theories are causal models that try to explain how the world works. For a scientific theory to be considered notable, it should fulfill at least one of the following criteria:
1. It has been included in general or specialized textbooks.
(Yes) - Definition of a Textbook: "a book used in teaching, giving the main facts about a subject". All three publications in the reference section meet this definition, and each of those is full of notable citations and references.
2. It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded. Inclusion in a peer-reviewed publication, especially in a respected journal with a reputation for rigorous inclusion standards and high impact, is an additional factor to be considered but not by itself a necessary or sufficient criterion.
(Yes) - It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area.
3. The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major.
(Not sure)
4. The scientific merit of the theory is disputed in, or rejected by, the scientific community, but it has received significant attention in political circles and ongoing coverage in the popular media. In this case the article should make note of this status.
(No)
5. The theory or model historically met any of the above criteria but has since been superseded by an alternative theory, or it has been used as an example in a notable account on the history of science. In this case the article should make note of this status.
(No)
6. The theory has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants.
(Not sure) - But I'm working on this one.
From the points above it seems clear to me that Sorce Theory more then meets the minimum requirements for notability of a wiki article and as such should not be deleted.
The article has also been revised to fit with the "Neutral point of view" policy and as such should not be deleted.
I believe that the revised article has also resolved the implication of not following the "No original research" policy and as such should not be deleted.
Gseletko 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reposnse to Gseletko: With regards to WP:SCIENCE:
    1. This is a proposed policy/quideline. As such, it it less than authoritative.
    2. This proposal is curently undergoing masive change. At the time of this writing, the 10 standards for inclusion have been reduced to 7, and the wording in the ones not removed tightenned up so as to make inclusion of theories like this one harder to achieve. (It would not surprise me to find that Gseletko's posting above is in fact responsible for these edits.)
It also seems to me that Gseletko is treating sorce theory as its own "relevant field". For exmaple: It has never been considered to be likely true by the overall scientific community at any time since its inception, and yet Gseletko is claiming that is passes muster in regard to this standard (which admitedly as written did not include the "overall scientific community" clause, but that is obviously what is meant). Another example is treating its creator as being prominent in the "relevant field". IMO, the relevant fields are theoretical physics, particle physics, and relativity (or spacetime physics). Sorce theory lack prominence in all of these fields. --EMS | Talk 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:12Z

Kick It Up

edit
Kick It Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No reliable sources given or found. --SPUI (T - C) 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kick it up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(added by closing admin)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith nomination by sockpuppet. The article still needs better sourcing though, for some leads see below. ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden (third nomination)

edit
Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

Page is attack site; not notable. Stompin' Tom 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to draw the attention of readers to this. CJCurrie 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser confirms that User:Stompin' Tom is a sock of User:Arthur Ellis at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis Bucketsofg 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, not notable. May change in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Shriber

edit
Todd Shriber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Ex-medium level politics professional (communications director i.e. press officer for a congressman) involved in minor scandal which got him fired. Scandal involved an attempt to hire hackers to change his college GPA - not illegal arms sales, leaking secrets to foreign powers, fixing elections, burying bodies in the desert etc etc etc. ~670 google hits, mainly blogs. Very limited press coverage[107]. . About 3 Factiva news database hits about this scandal (local newspapers/ AP newswire). The guy's career is probably ruined and he might face criminal charges, but his position and the scandal are too minor for sufficient encyclopedic notability in Wikipedia. This article was originally created by a single purpose account, User:Armednuclearterrorist (an inappropriate user name, but anyway), and I have some concern it was created as a schadenfreude article. No, I am not a secret GOP operative. Bwithh 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree w/ Bwithh -- Todd Schriber is non-notable. --lquilter 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An amusing incident with squirrel photos and everything, but let's face it, this is a more or less ordinary person (if we had a prof test for politicians, this person would fail) involved in an incident that was essentially a storm in a teacup. Not everything vaguely newsworthy needs an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I say delete the article. I created it because it was hilarious to me. The full record of his deeds exist on www.attrition.org and google anyways. I think it's very fitting that this entry get deleted because it says not only did he ruin his life due to stupidity but that he's unimportant enough to not even spend 30k of disk memory on. Also, I didn't speak up when Jacqueline Passey was up for deletion and I *slept* with her so I can't defend this guy in any way shape or form. Armednuclearterrorist 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait This news just broke. Let's give it a week or two to see if it's a flash in the pan (which might well be the case) or becomes a larger story. To make a larger meta-point, the failure of integrity shown by this kind of conduct is instructive to future students and politicians. This is a classic example of academic dishonesty crossing over into the political world. clarka 28 December 2006 (as 208.65.181.109 (talk · contribs), at 14:18, December 28, 2006)

To make a larger meta-point, the failure of integrity shown by this kind of conduct is instructive to future students and politicians. but Wikipedia is not a [[WP:SOAPBOX}] Bwithh 15:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is at least as noteable as Goodwin, South Dakota, Lilla Edet Municipality, Ogeechee Technical College, Andy Frost, and hundreds of other articles which are not deemed fit for deletion. DrHydeous 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, that's the broadest application of the Pokemon defence fallacy I've ever seen. Even leaving that aside, 3 of your 4 examples aren't people. 2 of them are geographic locations at the level of town or higher - it is typically considered in afds that these are inherently encyclopedically notable. Though none of these 4 have ever actually been subject to an afd discussion, so they've never been deemed fit or unfit for deletion. As for the the single real life person article you use as an example, at least he's clearly a minor public/media figure by his own career choice (radio DJ). Plus Frost's article wasn't created out of schandenfreude. Shriber's was (as has been freely admitted by the creator), indicating WP:BLP issues. Bwithh 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Press officer is not a public figure at this level Bwithh 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete We do not keep non notable or unverifiable articles to see if they later become notable or verifiable. We delete them, and DRV or restart them if and when they become notable or verifiable. -- Vary | Talk 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this really only serves as an attack article on a person who would be non-notable except for one embarrassing incident. If he ever becomes notable I'm sure the story of his scandal will make it into the article but unless either the story has legs and becomes more significant or it gets picked up more widely and turns into a cause celebre I don't see any reason for retaining this. --Duke of Duchess Street 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:18Z

2040 Summer Olympics

edit
2040 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Holygroup 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:20Z

2018 Winter Olympics

edit
2018 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Holygroup 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:23Z

Point of Everything

edit
Point of Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Plot summary of apparently non-existent novel (zero Google hits) written by person who created the entry SUBWAYguy 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:24Z

Stephen Strain

edit
Stephen Strain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Possibly a hoax or at least completely non-notable. Glendoremus 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thorpe-Apps

edit
Andrew Thorpe-Apps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as a speedy delete by One Night In Hackney with the rationale Person does not exist. Google search only returns Wikipedia and mirrors, majority of the content of the article refers to Devon Malcolm. Since hoaxes aren't a valid CSD, I'm sending this to AFD. Delete per One Night In Hackney's rationale. -- JLaTondre 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. While chasing google links shows him as an Essex County cricketer, there is clear evidence of tampering with the Google data and a merging with him of data from Devon Malcolm. Which is quite disturbing. Any google admins on line?--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife venues

edit
Nightlife venues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Pleclech with reason - "Ill-defined, perpetually incomplete list". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:26Z

Ed Cunningham

edit
Ed Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Despite article's lofty claims, he doesn't appear to be a notable person. Although he is CEO of Clear Channel Entertainment China, that doesn't necessarily mean there is enough reason for an encyclopedia article to be made about him. Article was previously speedied, and recreated. Danny Lilithborne 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 04:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Device C Compiler

edit
Small Device C Compiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 08:21Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, Keep's did not take notability requirements into account. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux (washing powder)

edit
Linux (washing powder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

no notability established other than being called Linux SYSS Mouse 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the way, I also think a merge to Rösch would be appropriate to consider. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- very reasonable to keep in Linux_(disambiguation). Tonytypoon 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is a weird thing. A non-notable person or thing suddenly becomes notable because of a halo effect of another person or thing. I don't know if this powder came out before or after Linux became popular but when I drive through Switzerland next I'm gonna get some. I suspect it should be easier to install now than previous versions of powder, use less water, and complete the task of washing my clothes faster (oops sorry my cognitive bias showing). Strangely enough the company also has mäc oxi [110] (an illusion to Mac OS I guess ?) but no Windows OS unless you could construe "Dodomat" [111] to be the equivalent. Like they say Switzerland is fully of clocks and cheese with holes in it; just like my reason to keep. Ttiotsw 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even close to notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:27Z

Windows Vista RC 1 Software Compatibility List

edit
Windows Vista RC 1 Hardware Compatibility List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Windows Vista RC 1 Software Compatibility List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Original research. there are more then 10000 software and it's impossible to list them all out. LamerLists 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC) i registered this account just to start the afd, i have edited as a ip for long enough.[reply]

BTW, this page may be copied from [112]. I can't find information about their license terms, so it may or may not be a copyvio. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, also blanked by article author. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:29Z

Akamai initiative

edit
Akamai initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable political proposal to give some people in Hawaii some money. I fail to see how something like this merits an encyclopedia article. Prod removed by anonymous user with comment "I don't know what you mean by non-notable initiative". Danny Lilithborne 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article does not make a proposal of any kind political or otherwise, nor does it ask for money. This article was meant to share what this educational program does, and who it is for, as it reaches communities far outside Hawaii. The word initiative is part of the name of the organization that the artical is named after. It does not hold any other meaning. This is my first article that I've posted, so I am not sure why it poses a problem, please expand on concerns, thanks.--Mkmendes 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One google result, other results are all SERP spam (because of Akamai, the company). Not a notable effort, whatever its merits. --Dhartung | Talk 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:35Z

Batang Kaharian

edit
Batang Kaharian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is not notable in the Philippines as this is produced by a religious organization. Everything related to Apollo Quiboloy's church(Kingdom of Jesus Christ: The Name Above Every Name) is not notable in the Philippines. Wikiuserphil 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these people/shows are not notable in the Philippines. It's an advertisement for a religious sect Kingdom of Jesus Christ: The Name Above Every Name:

Kuki Roces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Give Us This Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sonshine Media Network International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shishir Kumar Bhandari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tetyana Kovriga-Arpon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newsline Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newsline (2005 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jade Cleaveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carlo Catiil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Marcus Lascano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Weekender World (ACQ-KBN) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reynald Tapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jhomel Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vanessa Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackie Kishida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muriel Iturralde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mary Ann Geralla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rowel Villanueva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Lazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karen Lazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Valerie Anne Lascano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maribel Lanticse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michelle Cruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cristina Canlas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:GUTD LiveBroadcast.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Maribel Lanticse.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:ACQ-KBN SonshineTV.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe tequila

edit
Cafe tequila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Apparent spam, added by User:Drfielding ("concidentally" the name of the creator of the product). Guy (Help!) 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. Allan Baker

edit
G. Allan Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No claims of notability. Does a campaign manager for a PM per se rate as notable? Note that the article was created by the subject's son. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubb Rubb

edit
Bubb Rubb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Minor, short-lived internet funny video. Survived first afd in December 2005 with a strong keep consensus although half the discussion doesn't seem serious. 46,000 google hits but mostly web forums, blogs, user video sites. 0 hits on Amazon booksearch[113]. ~6 unique hits on Factiva news database with 2 hits in 2003 for brief CBS news stories where Bubb Rubb is mentioned as one of several examples of funny videos on the internet. Fails WP:WEB Bwithh 22:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Just because an older Internet meme isn't getting any new exposure doesn't mean it's no longer notable. I fail to see how this article fails WP:WEB when it most clearly passes criterion #1, since multiple works have significantly used samples of the original KRON broadcast (soundboard, remixes, etc.). If your problem is with the fact that it's an Internet meme, then I insist that you also try to delete other, more obscure memes and see what happens. ---Bersl2 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bersl2 wrote "since multiple works have significantly used samples of the original KRON broadcast (soundboard, remixes, etc.)". Are there any works at al l using the samples which are not amateur-produced works or have substantive mainstream media recognition?. As for more obscure memes, its a Herculean task (no comment on which one), but I'll putting on my regular review list going forward. Remember, WP:CCC. Bwithh 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...I'll just assume that cleaning the Augean stables is the particular task. -- Kicking222 01:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:CCC, but I think your deletionist-exclusionist ideology is hardly on its way to consensus. ;) ---Bersl2 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (and racism removed). Proto::► 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progiciel

edit
Progiciel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No indications of notability, at best a dictionary definition, no citations, no reason for this to be in an encyclopedia are presented in the article. brenneman 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:38Z

Pygophilia

edit
Pygophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article consists of six words. No sources, no edits to article content since March. Article has been nominated for speedy delete before. Robotman1974 23:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this article meets speedy delete criteria. The article has to go through an AFD where the outcome is transwiki to meet CSD:A5. A technicality but still the rules. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël W.Pathé

edit
Raphaël W.Pathé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable actor. All roles mentioned are trivial at best, and neither google nor IMDB believe he appeared in them - at the very least his appearances are not enough to earn a credit for it. Closest claim to fame is as a minor presenter on a French tv show "Le Set". Fails WP:BIO. Contested speedy and prod. Creator and I have discussed this a bit at Talk:Raphaël Pathé. If deleted, the duplicate-article-turned-redirect Raphaël Pathé should go with it. Resolute 23:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It seems the only source of informations the person who's requesting deletion uses is the WEB. A lot of information are not on the net yet , I believe that this is the whole point of Wikipedia : many things do happen out of the web, like at the theatre, in art galeries and museums like video art movies, magazines, Wikipedia was created to use the net in order to provide informations to net users on different subjects.

In the case of

Raphaël W.Pathé :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

The above is the central criteria for inclusion , according to the Bio Wiki rules.

The person who requests deletion was vandalised 17 times, maybe in this case this person should be a little more flexible, it appears that 17 other people have disagreeing with this person's statements.

Pink TV was the first Gay TV channel in Europe, people have been talking about it even in the US, everyone was talking about it in France, because it helped gay people to find their identity on TV after years of beein laughed at, and after beeing rejected always.

Raphaël W.Pathé helped a lot on the 2 years developping the Channel and then on the promotion of it. Every TV presenter of Pink TV are on WIKI, why removing one of them while keeping others ?

Same rules shoulds apply to everyone shouldn't they ? XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked !

Regarding the IMDB sources, people should know that submitting a movie takes ages, it could take up to a year : Hillary Lloyds movies aren't on it yet because they are so busy with the work that they did not even reviewed it yet, but I am sure it will be soon. What really matters is that these movies did feature Raphaël W.Pathé as an actor, and that these movies have been shown to an audiance , movies had international press articles in notable British art magazines, it doesn't matter how long it takes for Google or Imdb to add the movie in the database.

For instance, a very famous actress like Romy Shneider does not even have a picture on IMDB... this proves what I am talking about.

Please be fair and stop the deletion process now. Nektaar TV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nektaartv (talk • contribs).


  • Comment Please do not remove my comments as part of your edits, though the one you did remove I would not consider vandalism. To respond to your arguments, I first suggest that you read No personal attacks. And no, it is not a personal thing. I am not convinced that this individual satisfies WP:BIO, and I have yet to encounter any evidence otherwise. Particularly, there is no evidence that he has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. The notability of PinkTV is irrelevent as I have not nominated it for deletion. The notability of Raphael Pathe is in question, and he needs to be able to stand on his own merit. Also, the "if you delete this article then you must delete all others" is not a strong argument. It merely suggests that there are other articles that require the attention of an AfD debate. Resolute 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More important question is what knowledge in term of famous TV personalities do you have ? Are you personaly involved with the TV world ? Do you work with IMDB ? In what field do you usually work ? have you ever personnaly watched TV channels where Raphaël W.Pathé appeared as a TV presenter ? Did you ever watch the movies mentioned in the article about Raphaäl W.Pathé ?

Also, the "if you delete this article then you must delete all others" is not a strong argument :

it is a strong argument : it means that if people whom only notability includes working a TV presenter on PINK TV are judged suitable for featuring on WIKI therefore, Raphaël W.Pathé who did not only worked as a TV presenter on Pink TV but also appeared on many other medias such as press and cinema has to feature on WIKI too.

If Raphaël W.Pathé does not feature on WIkipedia, it means the WP:BIO means absolutely nothing and that the WP:BIO is only used in an arbitrary fashion. This would make WIKI a very unreliable source of information to the people don't you think ?

I am not convinced that this individual satisfies WP:BIO, and I have yet to encounter any evidence otherwise : this person should definately checked the links provided on the article page, but apparently this person has decided not to.. I really wonder why... this is crazy... to be fighting over nothing in the end.

Raphaël W.Pathé is known to the public, this is a fact , accept it or not ! And again : XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked !

So if you don't like gay people or something, just say it, and we'll start a discussion on your talk page about homophobia, what do you think ?


I don't want to offend anyone, I am n ot mangling anyone. But again. It seems the only source of informations the persons who are requesting deletion use is the WEB. A lot of information are not on the net yet , I believe that this is the whole point of Wikipedia : many things do happen out of the web, like at the theatre, in art galeries and museums like video art movies, magazines, Wikipedia was created to use the net in order to provide informations to net users on different subjects; including informations that cannot be found anywhere else on the net !

In the case of

Raphaël W.Pathé :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

The above is the central criteria for inclusion , according to the Bio Wiki rules.

I personnaly bought magazines featuring Raphaël W.Pathé in the UK, but I don't know how to publish these pages on my WIKI page since i don't own these pages and these pictures, they come from the press, do I need to send these to the WIKI administrator via email ? Same with the copies of movies Raphaël W.Pathé appears ? This is possible and if it was possible to add video on wiki pages, I could add Raphaël W.Pathé's videos so everyone could see !

So if anyone tells me how to publish on the page the press articles and pictures that are evidence of his work, please let me know how to do it, then nobody will be able to say anything.

The Youtube section features a video of Raphaël W.Pathé presenting TV shows in French and English and featuring in a music video.

And in the end, Raphaël W.Pathé is on the imdb so he should be on the WIKI, this is a fact.

NektaarTV

    • Comment. (Please sign your posts with four tildes.) I understand that it is possible that someone has been covered in print media that does not have a web presence, but it is very rare for a currently notable person to be notable without having that reflected on the web somewhere. In the end, if they are notable, that proof of notability will appear eventually and then you can always appeal for deletion review to restore the article. For the time, I don't find evidence of notability. On this basic point, despite your protests, I think relying on web results is sufficient. Do note that IMDB's open submission policies mean that it is not a reliable indicator of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


But IMDB added Raphaël W.Pathé on the web, he did not ask for it : they added him because they thought it was needed. He isn't famous like Madonna for instance, but was Madonna so famous at first ? And now, would you consider Wiki without an article about Madonna ?

I am shocked to see that everyone from Pink TV was added and that Raphaël W.Pathé who's on TV on a regular basis and who's family created the cinema and the music industry cannot be added in the Wiki.... this isn't fair, apparently some people decide who's notable and who's not...

At least leave the picture and the Pink TV section, the picture has boon published already in different medias ( i own the rights no it) , be fair : everyone agrees about this notability.

This would be fair, at least ! And this whole conversation would have a meaning, for you all and for me.

thank you very much indeed for your undertstanding.

NektaarTV

My sister has an IMDb entry and she merely works set deck on movies and television shows. There is a reason why it is not considered a reliable source. Doubly so given you have already protested how unreliable IMDb is. I would also suggest that you are in a conflict of interest based on your recent comments. The decision on who is notable is based on established policy and guidelines. Specifically WP:BIO. This is why I nominated the article for deletion. It really does not appear that this individual has done much to be notable independent of his family at this point of his career. That, of course, is not to suggest that he wont at some point in the future. If he does, his article should return then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Resolute 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC

Please remember that this talk page is not a place to talk about family and sisters....

Anyway, I have checked your profile, you don't seem to know a lot about Television and Cinema anyway, I don't think you are able to decide or not if the Raphaël W.Pathé's is notable or not, you don't even speak French how could you have had access to articles about him in France... According to your fields of knowledge, I see in my crystal ball that you are a TOOSHBIZ totally out of showbiz and that you deal better with so called by you "notable" political figures. Remember XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked !

.... this article is needed, Raphaël W.Pathé is notable.... ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nektaartv (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nektaartv, I believe Resolute was using his sister as an example of why IMDb is not a reliable source, which makes it quite relevant. I also suggest that you avoid stating that other people are not sufficiently qualified to discuss articles on AfD; Wikipedia's policies/guidelines are rather universal and are applied to all sorts of fields. The same biographical guidelines for notability apply to people whether they be actors, political figures, or mathematicians. —ShadowHalo 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant source that can determine someone's notability are the audiance who watched the TV shows. And I agree yes, the same biographical guidelines for notability apply to people whether they be actors, political figures, or mathematics....here this doesn't seem to apply unfortunately.

Raphaël W.pathé does have a page on Wiki France, every one is fine about it, why is it such a problem on English Wiki ? Someone has to expalin ? are the notability policies different on Wiki English ?

NektaarTV

That article was created... two whole days ago (maybe less, depending on time zones). It links to one source: IMDB. And Wikipedia may not be used as a source for Wikipedia, that's a pretty firm rule. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the relevant source that can determine someone's notability are the audiance who watched the TV shows. And I agree yes, the same biographical guidelines for notability apply to people whether they be actors, political figures, or mathematics....here this doesn't seem to apply unfortunately.

Raphaël W.pathé does have a page on Wiki France, every one is fine about it, why is it such a problem on English Wiki ? Someone has to expalin ? are the notability policies different on Wiki English ?

Raphaël W.Pathé :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

The above is the central criteria for inclusion , according to the Bio Wiki rules.

The person who requests deletion was vandalised 17 times, maybe in this case this person should be a little more flexible, it appears that 17 other people have disagreeing with this person's statements.

Pink TV was the first Gay TV channel in Europe, people have been talking about it even in the US, everyone was talking about it in France, because it helped gay people to find their identity on TV after years of beein laughed at, and after beeing rejected always.

Raphaël W.Pathé helped a lot on the 2 years developping the Channel and then on the promotion of it. Every TV presenter of Pink TV are on WIKI, why removing one of them while keeping others ?

Same rules shoulds apply to everyone shouldn't they ? XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked !


In the end to be quite honest, I cannot even believe we are discussing this page ! Why do people spend so much energy just to destroy a page like this ! This is crazy ! Just by jaleousy ! If Charles pathé was still alive, he would be mad with the whole thing ! The Pathé family is notable, including anyone who holds the Pathé name and this is it, like Paris' Hilton is famous because 1 she comes from the Hilton family and 2 , because she too advantage of it by doing TV programs like simple life.

If people are upset because they do not have a name... this is one thing. Raphaël W.Pathé was already know in Paris anyway because of the name, and now he's known because of the movies Felix and Frederic and Slip Disco : he stared in it, the movies are made by artist Hilary Lloyds who's well known in England in art video and he's the main actor in these movies.

You know in the end, I am just bored of the whole thing, I am just thinking of copying and pasting this discussion and make an article about "how easy it is to make a page about some stupid soccer match in Canada, and how difficult it is to add a TV presenter Biography's of a TV host just because he worked on gay TV !

I don't even know who will decide in the end, but meanwhile I am copying all this converstion, becaue this is outrageaous really !

NektaarTV

Please calm down. First, there is no provision in Wikipedia policy for limiting who can express an opinion on an article's deletion. We are a general-interest encyclopedia, so the general readership is entitled to guide what content is appropriate. We're sorry that our policies do not extend to allowing people to have articles on them just because they do good things or the editors worked hard on them. There simply aren't any reliable sources that have been presented that show that M. Pathé/Wolff meets our guidelines for notability. That's all this is about. Please don't go looking for other motives, it is a violation of our good-faith assumption rule. --Dhartung | Talk 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge discussions should take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than AfD. Not sure quite what this editor is up to, has a pattern of edits and behavior on random topics which make no sense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rugbyball (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment This isn't a merge discussion, this is a deletion discussion. At no point did I propose the article be merged. (point of fact, this individual already has a brief mention on Pathé, which is about all that can be said about this individual, as independent notability is still lacking). Resolute 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: this user has been adding this exact message in several AfDs, it would appear the comments about "pattern of edits making no sense" itself is nonsense. Resolute 19:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still i believe nobody really showed convincing arguments about Raphaël W.Pathé's article deletion. There is no real reason for the article to be removed. It should stay expecially since the whole world has had proof that Raphaël W.Pathé has been a TV presenter on Pink TV and had press articles making him notable as a TV presenter and expecially since his family brought everything to the movie industry. He's had pictures in the magazine, was featured in videoclips and movies, now maybe you don't wanna see the truth, but this is it !It's got to stay !

NektaarTV

And again about Raphaël W.Pathé :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

The above is the central criteria for inclusion , according to the Bio Wiki rules.

So respect your own rules !

NektaarTV

  • Delete One entry in IMDb, alongside literally dozens of other "pinksetters". The fact that he was in a video does not make him the subject of the video, which is what he's required to be to meet our notability standards. Redirecting would only encourage similar article creation and similar time spent processing AfDs. --DeLarge 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being related to someone famous does not make one famous. Based on your problemmatic image uploads, Nektaar, you should review Wikipedia's copyright policies before you start criticizing others for their understanding of WP policy.--Beaker342 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was User:JDoorjam deleted "Mother Vinegar" (db-band, db-repost) and protected as persistent repost. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Vinegar

edit
Mother Vinegar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. This article was deleted in October 2005 and has been recreated since. Band still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Prod removed. StoptheDatabaseState 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26&oldid=1081094807"