Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Linuxcaffe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page contains relevant and useful information about a business that is in the business of promoting Free Software, fairly traded and organic products, and various community coops and artists. The only promotion that the caffe engages in is the unselfserving kind.

Linuxcaffe has received a fair amount of attention for these very reasons:

http://business.newsforge.com/business/06/03/07/1556230.shtml?tid=39

http://digg.com/linux_unix/New_linux_cafe_opens_in_Toronto

http://www.linuxcaffe.com/node/228

"So within 48 hours, 3 major news networks, covering high-tech/ open source/ WiFi stories, decided independently that linuxcaffe was a good place to start."

If putting a link to the caffe website was the reason for deletion, that's easily changed. Please reconsider? Would removing the business template on the right be of any use?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Hús ö nd 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macau.xmas.2005

An experimental short film that documents the obstacles and challenges most Macanese endure when developing a career in the creative industry. The article and this AfD document the obstacles that self-promoters face in trying to get articles into Wikipedia. Was speedily deleted once as spam. -- RHaworth 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they also document the obstacles and challenges that we face in trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopaedic. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting deleted on WP will make them stronger when fighting their way over the obstacles. Pavel Vozenilek 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Missvain 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Rever e ndG 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everything above! K yo cat^meow! 06:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above commentary. At this rate, we should be doing one of these for every video on YouTube. --Dennisthe2 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Sr13 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-incarnation of a spam article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spam, spam, spam, spam.... SkierRMH,11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable film, no reason whatsoever why it deserves an articleCoaster Kid 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SonicChao 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Laureyssens

Self-published cosmology researcher, fails WP:NOR (and probably WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COI too). Related AfDs/VfDs at Talk:Pelastration/Delete (from 2003) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehran Keshe. Demiurge 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite accomplishments such as 'In 1997 Laureyssens created more complex puzzles introducing as an extra two pentagon puzzle pieces. Now it was possible to make next to the cube also a pentagon box.' Maybe if he could figure out how to make a foam puzzle with four extra pieces I'd reconsider. Antonrojo 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaporize and salt. Once the OR (and possible baloney) has been deleted, about the only notability left is inventing a neat but not particulary notable puzzle and contributing to 3ivx (but there's no references for that). Like usual, people who put up this kind of hooey leave it uncategorized and unlinked so it stays as far under the under the deletion radar as possible. Tubezone 03:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weird. Missvain 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm probably mistaken, but I don't think he's the inventor of Belgium. Rever e ndG 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this? How did someone invent the Kingdom Of Belgium? This is a load of caca, apologies for language. K yo cat^meow! 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you really want to get technical about it, Belgium really is an invention, but I doubt Dirk Laureyssens was around in 1830. I think that is just sloppy translation from French or Flemish. Tubezone 06:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mildly entertaining, but hardly Wikipedic. Stammer 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An inventor of Belgium?! Is that to mean he is an inventor in Belgium, or one of the people who invented Belgium? Either way, silliness aside, Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 08:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you translate an inventor from Belgium into French, it's un inventeur de Belgique, into Flemish Een uitvinder van België. Machine translate either back to English, both come out An inventor of Belgium Tubezone 14:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the pointer. Note, corrected some formatting. --Dennisthe2 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Inventor of Belgium? Sr13 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone who has the gall to invent Belgium should be deleted (apologies to real Belgiums) SkierRMH,11:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but bet rid of the cosmology stuff unless it's verifable (his association with it, not the stuff itself). Be nice. Nobody would suggest that The Pied Piper of Hamelin used a town instead of a flute. "An inventor of Belgium" is weird-looking to an Anglophone eye, agreed, but perfectly comprehensible. No WP:BIAS against people with English as not their first language, please. As for the Happy Cube I've got one of these and it makes me anything but happy, as I can't do the /expletive deleted/ thing. Tonywalton | Talk 13:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's pleasant to hear the sound of a civilised voice here. Stammer 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems to me a lot of the Wikipedia "experts" don't accept reality. My puzzles are real and sold in many countries. And I had a lot of counterfeith too. I am an inventor and you can check more than 130 patent applications on databases on Internet. I have a lot of officially registered USA copyrights, starting from 1986. My puzzles were exhibited on the World Expo of 1992 in Sevilla and 1996 in Portugal in the Pavillions of Belgium. You need to have a very good product to be invited there by the Belgian authorities. But in fact: What is the problem? Mu6 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half blatant advertising, half complete (and non-notable) bollocks. HEL 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to the above contributors, and with some reluctance, I say Keep. Whilst the business with the holons and the cold fusion looks like crankiness, which I'd like to delete on the grounds that it's personal research and thus not appropriate to Wikipedia, I do think that this guy is notable as the inventor of the little foam-rubber cube puzzles. I've found a couple in Christmas crackers over the years, and they're neat little geometric puzzles - nothing like as interesting or important as Rubik's Cube, but worth noting nonetheless. His mistake in writing what I suspect is a self-publicising article was to put all the cranky stuff in. WMMartin 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Many of the Dutch googles are about DGS, a compression technique he advertised 2001-2002. There was a lot of argument about that one, some said the claims were outrageous, and there was an authorship dispute. Neither of these is represented here, we only get a short sentence about his involvement in 3ivx. Something to hide? On average, the combination of having claimed that an entire film could be shown on a 16 Mb memory mobile phone, involvement in cold fusion and cosmology and the self advertisement here is enough to tip the balance. --Pan Gerwazy 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: He's obviously NOT the inventor of Belgium, it doesn't say he is. That being said, it can be argued whether or not he's notable. In the Belgian wiki I might say weak keep, not here. --Wizardman 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. . Aksi_great (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Tully

Self-promotion piece written by Mathew.tully. -- RHaworth 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-promotion is not against the rules. It may be tacky, but it's not grounds for deletion. He apparently has one claim to notability as described here. He also ran as a Republican candidate in the recent election, which may or may not be worthy of comment. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other how this goes, as long as it gets a fair hearing. Denni ^talk 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The "National Leadership Award" linked to above appears to be part of an ongoing GOP fundraising scam[1][2]. Here's the Washington Post on this practice[3]. As for the "2006 Republican of the Year" mentioned in the article, lots of people claim this[4] - I initially thought maybe its like one person from each state but apparently not[5]. Funnily, no sign of Tully though[6]. Perhaps another classy GOP fundraising/vanity honors scam[7]. Bwithh 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable claim made in article for encyclopedic notability. Ran for New York State Assembly in 2006[8] but apparently lost. Bwithh 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like how he shares that he is currently on disability for his injury sustained. Missvain 03:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable in the slightest. --Dennisthe2 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Sr13 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Non notable...SkierRMH,11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Oh, hey, whaddayaknow, there's a wikipedia article already on the scam thing: National_Republican_Congressional_Committee Bwithh 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if the creator wishes so... Otherwise, I'll go with current consensus and say delete. --Gray Porpo ise 20:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article, a being an unsuccessful candidate is not enough for notability.-- danntm ^T _C 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet Once again, non-notable Scienceman123 talk 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably can be speedied per G11. Conflict of interest, which may be userfied as an alternative. Ohconfucius 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tully He does have some notable work including some precedent setting victories for federal employees. His legal work was one of the central topics of discussion in a Merit Systems Protection Board (Government) forum on new case developments and new Board procedures in Washington DC this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.167.205 (talk • contribs)

Comment would you care to back that up? right now, your asserts lack verifiability. Ohconfucius 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mannaraprayil Cor-Episcopa

This person does not pass WP:BIO at all AW 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs sources, not deletion --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They need one or the other. •Elomis• 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Treat this as a keep if any reliable sources are added. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added two sources, there wasn't much to find online. Just a few things related to his birth/bio and his current church position. Not much to chose from and/or read :-/ Missvain 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, no reliable sources. Just a priest with a successful ecclesiastical career, apparently, but that would not be notable even if it were well sourced. Sandstein 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can give this article as much sources as you want, but the person in question is not notable. Sr13 09:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability - not that successful career, at least that can be verified. SkierRMH,11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO claims one book published on the subject(no ISBN number mentioned), but not by an independant source. has WP:NPOV problems though fixable, WP:V lacks referencing that could address some of these issues. Subject lacks notiability. Gnangarra 15:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not familiar with the polity of this church, but they appear to be an episcopal body. As such one of their bishops would probably be notable, but this priest misses. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep- Highly notable priest in Kerala. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment please support your claim with references, as I was unable to find anything that complied with WP:BIO to demostrate notiability. Gnangarra 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article indicates some notability but is too verbose and very POV ("All these incidents never de-motivated Achen. Day by day he gained more courage and fought against the other group.") I don't think deletion should be taken as a precedent against recreation; I might possibly support a clear, concise and better referenced article. Uppland 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: This article is one of those that's so hard to read and one of those that haven't been fixed up yet, so I don't even know if he's notable or not. Looks to be deleted anyway though. --Wizardman 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monadic predicate calculus. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monadic logic

Contested prod. Dictionary definition; if this is useful, it should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Septentrionalis 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Monadic predicate calculus, then expand a bit. I realize that this amounts to rewriting the stub from the ground up, but it seems to me that the subject is just barely notable enough to deserve an article. As one of the backlinks points out, this appears to be the fragment of predicate calculus that corresponds to the judgements that can be reasoned about straightforwardly with classical syllogistic logic, which ought to count for something. Also, it is a well-known decidable fragment of predicate calculus, as pointed out in Predicate calculus (which, incidentally, needs a link if we keep the article). Being decidable, it may have an interesting complexity class, but I have not searched for those. Henning Makholm 02:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Syllogistic logic should be binary: All A is B is a function of two variables, isn't it? Septentrionalis 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A" and "B" denote properties rather than individuals, so in modern notation you would transcribe "All A's are B" as $\forall x.A(x)\Rightarrow B(x)$ . Henning Makholm 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sr13 09:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom"? Henning Makholm 13:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created Monadic predicate calculus. Changing vote to Redirect there. Henning Makholm 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because of the creation of Monadic predicate calculus. Sr13 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I added some more connections between Henning's new page, second-order logic, and some related pages. —David Eppstein 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect. Seems reasonable to redirect to larger parent page. --Jayron 32 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect. Excellent work, Henning Makholm — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or~~ redirect The fact that it is now a dictionary definition does not mean that an article on this topic can only be a dictionary definition. Obviously an article could be written on this topic. Michael Hardy 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. I was the person who originally prod'ed this page. I disagree that this topic would make much of an article, but I see no problem with a redirect to the newly created monadic predicate calculus. Based on the unanimous opinion, I think that a speedy close to this AFD is reasonable. CMummert 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Connecticut

Connecticut does have a coast, but it does not define a "Region." In fact it was made up as an agglomeration of smaller Connecticut "Regions," which reflect some planner or tourism official's idea of what needed to exist - neither Coastal Connecticut nor its "constituent parts" would likely be recognized by state residents. Jd2718 08:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it is also an artificial region, invented by agglomerating smaller, artificial regions.[reply]

Southwestern Connecticut

Jd2718 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I really don't know, but all I can go by is precedent (and perhaps borderline WP:Pokémon test); We do have articles like Southern California, Oregon Coast and Florida Panhandle. If there's distinction of the region, perhaps it's worth an article. --Oakshade 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in the template...per above. Sr13 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is the nominator the one to decide that it does not constitute a region, when the state does do so? Alansohn 09:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. The State of Connecticut has designated "Coastal Connecticut" as some sort of official region? Jd2718 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems reasonable to me. Bridgeport, New Haven and New London are certainly all similar cities, and I think the area qualifies as a region. —Cuivi é nen 18:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathize with this nom. because often people invent concepts which exist only in their own minds and then write wikipedia articles on them. But this term gets many, many (42,000) ghits and as much as Coastal Connecticut may lack an identity the term is in use. Allon Fambrizzi 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Weak Keep per the number of hits posted above. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be improved, but it's notable enough, so Keep. --Wizardman 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Fixx

Fails WP:MUSIC, scarce results on google. Though it's a poor resource, Last.fm indicates extremely little (2~3 plays each track) play. Crunk 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-line article, with two external links, that says nothing except that he exists. Wavy G 00:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy" delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Antonrojo 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to assert notability. Subject has no AMG bio, but there is a discography. Caknuck 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can even be a speedy per A7 Missvain 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to write a sourced article on this ~~scam~~ martial art, they are free to write one. But this version isn't it, and for this reason it needs to go. Kimchi.sg 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hikuta

*Delete Non-notable advertisement. It appears that aside from un-named elite mercenary units units this art is only taught by one person and the web site is really just a commercial link. Read marketing gimik.Peter Rehse 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading things like this make it sound pretty scammy. Add in the lack of references, and this looks like a high-kicking delete to the face. --humblefool ® 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh please comment this time, people? :-) --W.marsh 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article needs a serious overhaul, actually it needs a lot of things. I can't find an reliable sources on this, nor does it seem particularly notable. Or well recieved for that matter. wtfunkymonkey 02:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From reading message boards (questionably reliable of course) some people even think this martial art is a scam, it's Russian, it's Ancient Egyptian boxing...I'm not sure what to think. I think someone with serious martial arts knowledge would be the best judge of this Missvain 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete If this is for real, then its probably worth keeping. However, there's no sources and the article is terribly written. I'd support a keep if these were addressed in the next day or two. --The Way 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Foley

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Radio show presenter. This article has no sources for its notability, though he seems likely to be included. Peter O. (Talk) 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears non-notable to me, the article reads like a fluff piece. Without any sources cited there should be no article. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability. Hello32020 02:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a presenter (DJ) on a radio station that covers all of Ireland, and he was nominated for an national radio award last year [9]. I'd say he satisfies the "name recognition" and "large fan base" qualifiers (on a national level) for WP:BIO. Caknuck 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems like a regional celeb, and has Irish newspaper coverage [[10]] and as said above, he has been up for national awards. I think per Caknuck, it's a keeper, of course after some clean up/sources. Missvain 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Presenting on Ireland's only national independent radio station seems to be just sufficiently notable. However, the article needs work. It's entirely unverified/OR, reads a bit like a CV and I can't help but feel there's been some WP:AUTO going on here on the part of the man himself. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually better make that a very weak keep. The coverage I get from Google.ie news is along "local lad set from stardom" lines from regional papers. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only thing notable is that it's presenting in the nation's only independent radio station. Nothing much special. Does not pass notability test. Sr13 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real significance --pgk 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I see a reference to a non trivial independent reference, but I don't see multiple non trivial independent references. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Since this article was proposed for deletion, Candlewicke has removed the AfD template and made some significant additions to the article. The fact that lots of unsourced information was added by a single user and three of the external links lead to home movies on YouTube leads me to suspect WP:COI. Stebbins 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable ( and, I suspect, self-written ). WMMartin 18:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable, known all around Ireland. 24.226.160.237

You're going to need to provide sources to back up that claim. Right now there are none in the article. Stebbins 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per IslaySolomon. I agree that this is an iffy article. --Wizardman 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is very popular among the radio listeners of Ireland so much so that he was given his own show during the day as said above he has been nominated at least for national awards, or perhaps may have won some. The article has received some work too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.201.126 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep He is a well-known radio personality.16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.201.126 (talk • contribs) (struck double vote)

I feel it is worth pointing out that the previous two comments were added by the same IP address. Stebbins 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just call this no consensus and close the debate, as it seems quite split. --Wizardman 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, DJ on a national radiostation in Ireland should make him notable enough. bbx 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, He definitely is notable enough to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.36.19.106 (talk • contribs) — 87.36.19.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep Should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.205.0 (talk • contribs) (striking another likely double vote; see page history; user is IP hopping Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly's Ghastly Comic

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The notability of many web comics is up for debate, but I'm of the opinion that this one is not too verifiable in terms of webcomics. Delete (or, if that's too far, a list of web comics including some of the "notable" ones that just aren't notable enough to have articles). A Link to the Past (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination; although I would suggest that there be an article on a person instead of the webcomic. Withdrawn based on discussion at [11] - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Missvain 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitatly fails WP:WEB SkierRMH,11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, the usual bunch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it does fail WP:WEB etc. It has a listing on comic-nation.com and comicalert.com as well as others found on a google search. Mallanox 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mallanox. Dionyseus 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User appears to be following me and voting opposite of what I vote on the AfD, never giving logic outside of "per (whomever)". User also rarely votes on the AfD with the exception of one he made out of bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, WP:WEB contemplates coverage by somewhat reliable and trustworthy sources to establish the notability of the site, which, unfortuantely, this does not have.-- danntm ^T _C 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very few webcomics have the widespread recognition required to belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia, and this appears not to be one of them. The place for information on webcomics that us uncultured Wikipedians refuse to admit are important is Comixpedia, where people who understand and appreciate webcomics get together and write great articles about them. It comes as no surprise to discover that Comixpedia already covers this webcomic, with an article that's basically a copy of an earlier version of this one. Therefore, transwiki-merge the additional information from our version, then delete the article here and let webcomic enthusiasts take care of their own. — Haeleth Talk 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While his comic is not updating regularly, it is part of the history of webcomics. It should remain.

Note: User's only edit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'The article does contain a lot of duplicated material that can easily be found on the comic's page itself. Considering that Ghastly writes several other comics, this page would probably be of better service amalgamated into an article relating to Ghastly's comic conglomerate, Tentacled Epics, to also include information about his other series, Apophenia 357 and his forthcoming works.
Keep Along with Sexy Losers, Ghastly's Ghastly Comic is representative of adult webcomics. The fact it isn't currently updating is without relevance. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never mentioned "not being currently updated" as a reason. Ghastly's Ghastly Comic failed WP:WEB. And don't claim bias, I knew of the comic before it went color.
- Additionally: [12] - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are tons of webcomic entries on wikipedia that nobody's ever heard of. The only reason this particular article is up for deletion is because it actually has gotten attention. Ghastly's Ghastly comic is popular and noteworthy compared to a lot of comic articles. Amongst all of them, it makes the cut just because there are so many less noteworthy here than it.209.86.72.159 09:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: User's only edit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - note: No, it's not. I just have a dynamic IP address, as a result of being a dial-up user. What would not being an active editor have anything to do with my opinion on the deletion, anyway? nowhere does it say only registered, veteran wikipedians get their opinion counted.209.86.72.159 09:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Users with low edit counts are often unfamiliar with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and so unaware of what counts when it comes to encyclopaedia articles. Your argument is a case in point. You make the fallacious "If article X them article Y." argument, and you make a bare asserting that the subject is popular and noteworthy, expecting that we will take you at your word. We don't work on the basis of accepting personal testimony of Wikipedia editors. We work on the basis of sources, sources, sources. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comic is notable to me, but according to WP:WEB it seems that anything that spreads by word of mouth or personal recommendation fails the notability criteria (guides?). If notability is transitive, I came across Ghastly's comic through Sexy Losers through Stile Project. Reluctant delete, since we're going by the rules. --GargoyleMT 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#PAPER would suggest that there's no real point in getting rid of it, since it's not advertising or spamming, and it's a fairly well-written, informative, concise piece. There's no value given to wiki by getting rid of it, besides making the lists of wiki articles a bit smaller and neater, I suppose. I am liking the idea of a central Tentacle Epics article, however, since all of them together would be enough to pass the notability criteria, I would think. Can we reach an agreement that instead of deletion, it should be merged with the other works of Ghastly into a Tentacled Epics article? 209.86.74.146 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you cite sources to prove that there is a basis for having anything at all about this subject anywhere in Wikipedia, first. sources, sources, sources! Uncle G 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB as above. Wickethewok 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is quite well known LazyDaisy 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable enough PTIuv777 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Both of the above users have made very few edits - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the green tentacle thing has become an often-posted humorous image on Fark.com discussions (image), so it is in effect a kind of meme nowadays. I didn't know that the image was based on a comic until now but, to quote another user on another deletion discussion, "I find it a vital service for Wikipedia to bring me information on life's obscure topics". Esn 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:WEB, as above (but only weak per Esn's comment - if there's more to say about this, I could be convinced to change) . Please note that there was apparently an entreaty on another website to readers of this comic to come over and "vote," which may explain the new users here (please see Link's link above for more details). Also a person claiming to be the author of the comic seems to have participated in the discussion over there, which brings up concerns about WP:AUTO (assuming he is who he says he is, of course). So that should be kept in mind - those new user comments certainly "count" (to the extent anyone's counting), but may not be as unbiased as your average comment. However, I'd also like to add that if you've just come to wikipedia for the first time to vote, we're glad you're here and encourage you to stay and explore and see how you can contribute. --TheOtherBob 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I see the nomination has been withdrawn on additional evidence of notability. --TheOtherBob 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[13] The second post made by Ghastly seems to assert verifiability. Additionally, the Alexa ranking is around 180,000, an acceptable number for a webcomic, and with the evidence in Ghastly's second post, I think keeping would be a good idea. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was semi-speedy delete. -- Steel 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Password Safe
[edit]

Enterprise Password Safe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable product made by a non-notable company, which was deleted on afd. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The applicable standard is WP:SOFTWARE so I suggest reframing your argument based on that. Antonrojo 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11 as blatant ad, else delete as non-notable software. Seraphimblade 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Seraphimblade. I've so marked the article. Valrith 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW M a rtinp23 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost baptism
[edit]

Holy Ghost baptism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody's warmed-over sermon. Too bad this can't be speedied. D enni ^talk 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, why can't this be deleted as patent nonsense, WP:NOT? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1, patent nonesence. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin coup
[edit]

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

As far as I can determine this is a neologism. No relevant independent Ghits here. Da Pigeon Coup is the handle of a linguistic group in the field but not related to this definition. Fails WP:V. Delete. BlueValour 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt made to explain origins of the term which appears to be slang among linguists. Antonrojo 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Missvain 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, neologism. SkierRMH,11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hello32020 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pidgin English is well known enough but I can't find anything to verify this. Mallanox 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There must be some other article on the phenomenon of hybrid languages, no? (I agree that this term is a neologism and should be deleted) Allon Fambrizzi 23:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Comment - there are; Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit for example but they are specific hybrids not generic neologisms. BlueValour 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a rather well-known term. I think it just needs citations. .V. 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Ota
[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. Basic 'claim to fame' is that he wrote an anti-Semitic book discussed here. The book gets about 9 ghits. Ryu Ota/Ota Ryu get around 200 combined ghits. Antonrojo 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Encyclopedically non-notable. A single hit in international Factiva news database (I tried both versions of his name) - one line passing mention in a brief Jerusalem Post article on anti-semitic websites. One line mention and footnote in one book on google books[14] Bwithh 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Missvain 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Guiandg 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, NN,SkierRMH,11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a Japanese person, you will find more info in Japanese. 569 unique Ghits for "太田龍" and 44 unique Ghits for the book. However, his book has an unimpressive Amazon rank of 623,840th. Ohconfucius 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His name is written "太田竜" too (竜 is the simplified form of 龍). --1523 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep more material has suddenly been added; it looks like this person has something to have an article about (even if you don't like what he represents). Translation needed. Hmains 23:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ALREADY VOTED: More info has been added, which may change your vote. May not, but you guys should look at the article again. That being said, I would have voted delete based on the article as it stood on the 18th. With what it up NOW I say Keep. --Wizardman 18:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDLMA
[edit]

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

Delete: Non-notable music promotion thing. Has been deleted via WP:PROD once but then recreated. I came very close to hitting that speedy button but figured I'd be nice and bring it here first. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Speedied No notability, violation of WP:NN, and you should think about giving the recreator a level 3 or 4 warning. Diez2 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule against recreating WP:PROD victims. WP:CSD#G4 only applies to articles deleted by WP:AFD (that's another good reason not to speedy - if a full AFD goes through, the article falls under the CSD G4 umbrella). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows only 58 unique hits for "Horsham District Live Music Alliance" which doesn't denote a great deal of notability. If someone can present some verifiable evidence of notability, that would be good. Until then, I think Delete. IrishGuy ^talk 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Imola Laid to Waste Everafta Zevicon EighthNerve Wobbly Squadron" achooooo! Missvain 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wobbly?? WTF? SkierRMH,11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (though I'm not sure what Missvain is on about). --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last line, where it shows the bands that have partcipated is listed as one big sentence :) Missvain 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; however, I've merged the content into Bay Shore, New York so this is being kept as a redirect for GFDL compliance. I could do a page history merge but it's always tricky so I'd prefer not to. JYolkowski // talk 22:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awixa Avenue
[edit]

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

This article does not make any claim to notability. The houses that it lists are all in red links, and the "home of Zsa Zsa Gabor"? This should be deleted for failing notability. Diez2 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 314 ghits, more expected for a notable street. MER-C 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could maybe be merged to Bay Shore, but there isn't much to go on. Missvain 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thought at first, like Missvain, to merge, but t'aint much to go there.SkierRMH,11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control city: deletion with notability problems. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Streets aren't notable for the most part. --Wizardman 18:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Burbrook
[edit]

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

No notability. Her most known role is in Blue Heelers? This utterly fails WP:BIO. Diez2 03:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep she had a "major role" on one of the longest running Aussie shows. But, I'm not Australian, I have never seen Blue Heelers (till I looked at the Wiki link) and she doesn't seem all that notable. But..perhaps to an Australian she might be? :) Missvain 04:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think her credentials add up to notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No problems satisfying WP:BIO. Note, nominator possibly should not be querying about "Blue Heelers?", as the show is indeed a major Australian TV Show. Ansell 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep The biography linked to by the article points a fairly substantial TV and movie acting career [15]. Not that it matters but Blue Heelers made it to this side of the world too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least marginally notable. Everyking 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to prominent role in major TV series. Mallanox 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criteria of WP:BIO, has more than a few credited roles, and prominence on Aussie tv should count as much as prominence on any other country's television programming. Agent 86 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blue Heelers was the most popular show on Australian television in the mid-1990s so she is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair\^talk 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. QazPlm 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it was an awful show, but also very popular, and she had a major part in it for a few years. Lankiveil 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per the above--cj | talk 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "utterly" passes WP:BIO as an Australian actress in film and highly popular TV series. The nominator's questioning of the notability of Blue Heelers also concerns me - I'm sure this was done in the best faith, but one has to be careful not to define "non-notable" as "I've never heard of it". --Canley 09:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty notable, although expansion to encyclopedic length would be advisable. Markovich292 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball. Aksi_great (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fable 3
[edit]

Fable 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No possible way to get verifiable sources, Fable 2 isn't out yet. Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be speedied This definitely meets the criteria of db-empty. Diez2 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Were there verifiable sources, it would definitely be included. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculation. Rever e ndG 04:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is one of the funniest entries ever. Missvain 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The talk page is an explicit admission of WP:AUTO/WP:COI and WP:NOT a web host. Anyway this is crystall balling, unverified/original research, WP:NOT a game guide and borderline advertising spam. Kudos to young Mr/Ms. Amarkov for keeping a cool head in the face of some utterly pathetic behaviour [16][17]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The talk page pretty much admits that this is pure nonsense. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passes the fails everything test. SkierRMH,11:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though the talk page is rather funny. Hut 8.5 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. --Wizardman 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't miss the Talk page per Hut 8.5. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Just read the talk page. DarkSaber2k 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Lian
[edit]

Ah lian was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-30. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah lian.

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

This is a Chinese street dictionary article. It describes what Ah Lian is, and then it lists external links. No notability. It's just a dictionary definition. Diez2 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A premise of this afd has an error. "Ah Lian" is commonly used in english language text. (Google 64k hits [18]) It originates as a romanization of Chinese. --Vsion 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The artices does have OR, POV, and accuracy issues. Recreating it later may be another option. --Vsion 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I stumbled across this one earlier when looking through the articles tagged as WP:OR. The term is notable within a fairly large area but that really doesn't change the fact that it is just a slang term. Wikipedia contains many such slang terms so that in itself is not reason enough. However the article is not sourced good enough and if you remove the obvious original research really there isn't enough left to warrant an article on its own. Delete and make a new article summing up these terms without spreading it across several articles. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because a word is notable does not mean it belongs in the English Wikipedia. But as I stated it is only a weak delete mainly based on the considerable number of Google hits for this. MartinDK 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR slang dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced dictdef. Kimchi.sg 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. Mallanox 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or Keep, existence established at previous nomination. This appears to be largely linguistic for now, but may be expandible. Septentrionalis 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Transwiki per what's already been said. --Wizardman 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete--only if Ah Beng is deleted too. 38.100.34.2 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Technically this is not what AfD should be used for, this should just be a Keep, and leave the actual merger to someone more interested, but very little of the article content wasn't already at Undeniable, so I merged and redirected. Someone more familiar with the subject is welcome to improve my work. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Then Until
[edit]

From Then Until (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is simply a re-issue of the album Undeniable, which already has a page on Wikipedia. Therefore, this article should be deleted. Rhythmnation2004 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. MER-C 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mer-C. Her eyebrows on the album cover scare me. Missvain 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mer-C. SkierRMH,12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mer-C. Zaque 24 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mer-C, or redirect, either one. --Wizardman 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Yomangani. Whisp e ring 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Apart
[edit]

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

Delete, self released album from Tim Brickley, see his AFD page for reasons.Xpendersx 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability cited. Edison 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest of the Strong Deletes because the article has apparently been deleted already. --Wizardman 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Vegaswikian. MER-C 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreens UK
[edit]

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

~~Delete~~. Speedy Delete per MER-C. This article was created by single purpose account user named Evergreensuk. It is an obvious advertisement. Lovelac7 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM Diez2 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Missvain 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Isilay
[edit]

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

The subject of this article has only 832 Google hits, and the article appears to be an autobiography, based on the author's name. Both the author and the anon who de-proded this article have no edits outside of this article. Scob e ll302 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up links, etc. Seems notable to me. Missvain 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have worked on some notable productions and soundtracks, but, on the other hand, the article needs some heavy cleanup and some links to sources. —Cuivi é nen 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done a bit of a tidy up. He's worked with a lot of prominent people. I'd say his notability is sound enough. Mallanox 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so long as the article improves. --Wizardman 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional weak keep, so as to extend Wikipedia's international scope. However, if it turns out that the poster is not who he says he is, then delete for reasons of privacy. 69.140.173.15 20:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Trask
[edit]

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

Not notable. IMDB only has about 5 appearances from him, and none of them being in any sort of notable role. Diez2 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I have always dreamt of playing "Customer" in a film. :P Missvain 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IMDB lists no notable performances nor does the article provide any more. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn. Do all of us who have done walk-throughs get our own page?? I'll start working on mine now! SkierRMH,12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe he'll get a break in the future but for now he's nn. Mallanox 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Wizardman 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Deudney
[edit]

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

NN professor per WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. Although he seems to have won internal teaching awards from his university, I really don't think that kind of thing can make a prof notable. The guy sounds like a great teacher, but that's not a reason to have an article on him in an encyclopedia -- even one that isn't paper. Has published a couple of books, but (1) nothing much is said about it in the article, and (2) that doesn't make his publication record especially much one way or the other. Mango juice^talk 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mainly seen in college publications. Obviously a smart cookie, but not important enough to be included here, IMHO! Missvain 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A "Daniel Deudney" search on Google Scholar indicates that he's a widely cited in scholarly publications. On Google he gets 11700 hits. John Hopkins University is a top-tier powerhouse in International Relations and being Associate Professor there is notable "per se". Stammer 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Leibniz 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although only Associate Prof, so NOT "notable per se," he has 407 hits on Google scholar. Seems notable in his field. Edison 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google scholar results. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to point out that most of the Google Scholar hits are citations, many of them in books. His single most cited work has 68 citations (1st hit), and that's a paper written 16 years ago. I don't see this as an especially long publication record, nor an especially strong one. Mango juice^talk 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he meets several prongs of the proposed WP:PROF (significant expert or important figure in his field), and he has been a subject in multiple independant non-trivial works. For example, his work is analyzed here, here, and here. One of his books is used as textbooks by an accredited school[19], and he has been part of the lecture circuit at major universities [20][21][22]. -Kubigula (ave) 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per google results

Weak delete: I do not feel that articles on individual living people are appropriate unless either they are very notable, or they consent to their own inclusion. 38.100.34.2 01:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abba Samuel of Dabra Wagag
[edit]

This is almost utter nonsense. Also, the only source is in Latin, so no one can really verify it. Finally, this could be a possible violation of WP:HOAX. Diez2 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in French, to start with; and is verifiable by a large number of Wikipedians. WP:FICTION should probably be applied (not literally, of course; hagiographies aren't usually intended as fiction), but Keep; no valid reason to delete.Septentrionalis 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, as Septentrionalis notes the source is in French, not Latin. Second, there appear to be several articles on this person on JSTOR and there are other sources that can be found on google, though it also appears many people have had this name. The sources rely on hagiographies... Some of the text in the article is questionable and the article is terribly written, needs wikified, cleaned and better sources but these are not valid reasons for deletion. --The Way 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe should go to Wikisource and summary here?? Khorshid 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it needs to be re-written in many places and citations added. I did verify some of the persons mentioned therein, so there are citation possibilities out there.SkierRMH,12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to duplicate Samuel the Confessor. Some kind of merge should be in order. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel the Confessor is 7th century, Egyptian, and son of a priest. Abba Samuel is 14th century, Ethiopian and son of a king. Please explain further. Septentrionalis 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, details like that are nothing that the New Chronology can't explain!
As for the article itself, major cleanup is required, but the article seems likely to be genuine hagiography, not "utter nonsense" or a hoax. All we need to keep this subject is verification that the biographical details and legends match those attributed to a saint by this name, and users above are claiming to have done that already, so hopefully citations will be forthcoming in short order. — Haeleth Talk 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable Ethiopian saint. The article already has a reference. Uppland 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Also, why do you assume that nobody could have verified it if it were in Latin? There are many Wikipedians who can read Latin. --Charlene 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable and an Ethiopian saint with independent verification of existence. I have wikified the article a little to try and make it more standard (headings, links, categories) - having no idea what standard is required (my normal stomping ground is Australian geographic articles!), I've left the text almost exactly as is. Orderinchaos78 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball 12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable Ethiopian saint. It simply needs to be cleaned up. He's legendary in the sense that his acts contain implausible feats, but he is a real saint and was a real figure. I don't see how you would think this could be "utter nonsense" or a "hoax." — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'll admit that I'm basing my opinion on what Yom has to believe (after all, his family comes from Ethiopia & he should know whether St. Abba Samuel existed), this article illustrates a problem that we will encounter more & more on Wikipedia: that there are some subjects whose veracity cannot be established with a Google search or taking a few minutes to consult an encyclopedia or other reference work. If the submitter had suspected this was a hoax, I honestly wish he had first asked at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ethiopia; it's an active project, none of us involved in it want bad information in Wikipedia, & he would have gotten an answer in a reasonable amount of time about it -- & saved himself & others all of this work. May I suggest that in the future a check with relevant WikiProjects be made whenever someone suspects a hoax? -- llywrch 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown Six
[edit]

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

Professional wrestling term made internet wrestling community. I put it up for prod a while back, Unfocused removed the template saying there was no reason it shouldn't be an article and that there was only a need for sources. Since the term is a term created by an internet community, it's unlikely that any information is verifiable with published reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there's not much that can be said about the topic other than the definition. Article is also unlikely to be more than a stub since the "SmackDown Six" only existed for about a year. Any relevant information could be merged into WWE Friday Night SmackDown! if necessary. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This (scroll down a bit) is the most reliable source I could find, and it doesn't seem to be either verifiable or very reliable. There are also concerns about notability and that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Missvain 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crufty. Sandstein 07:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Professional-wrestle-cruft.SkierRMH,12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per whatever. Yankee Rajput 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shindwa
[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:V. Can't find supporting reliable references for this on google or google books. This is the only unreliable source I can find[23]. Yes, its African, so potentially WP:BIAS issues in searching for references. On the other hand, its purportedly a sweet, edible fruit - information on which should be quite readily available unless this is an obscure slang word. Bwithh 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the vast majority of the ghits aren't related - here is a dictionary definition from yale; it only mentions the verb "to fail". Of course, I can't understand most of the hits, so I may be missing something. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With sources this could be kept as a stub, but as is I'd say no. - wtfunkymonkey 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can give the "real" name. SkierRMH,12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it interesting that the "unreliable source" the nominator cites is related to Sakeji school, given that our stub on Sakeji school (which appears to be real enough) was created by the same user as the article in question here. Here is another page which references the school and what I assume is the same fruit. This seems unlikely to be a hoax, since the school's website is verifiable on archive.org back to 2002 -- so I am inclined to believe this is true, but perhaps hard to verify -- for example, perhaps it's a local or regional term.
I concur with other editors that we can't keep this unsourced, but I do just wonder whether it's worth not being hasty here. I have notified the user who created the article (this should really have been done before, as s/he appears to be a newcomer); hopefully s/he will be able to provide sources. Remember not to WP:BITE. — Haeleth Talk 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I overlooked notifying the creator. As my editing history will show, notifying the creator after I afd-nom is something I routinely do, even with new users. This article was afd'd during my first session with new page patrol, and this put off my tempo/routine rather. Thanks to Haeleth for notifying the user, though I don't see my oversight or my nom statement as a violation of WP:BITE at all. Bwithh 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and just wanted to point out that noone has suggested that this is a hoax. Only that this fails WP:V - the "unreliable" source (the only source I could find) I cite does not help the current lack of sources, as it certainly fails WP:RS. The new link you suggest above also fails WP:RS. Bwithh 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until some references is provided. Anyone could create thousands of hoax articles about unreferenced things.Edison 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. Although a number of people suggested merge, there doesn't appear to be any notable information in the article to merge. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Bam
[edit]

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

There is no reason this needs to have its own page. If this information MUST be included on wikipedia (I think it is trivial at best) then it can be merged to the Bam Margera page. Ocatecir 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - wtfunkymonkey 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Missvain 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless info. Khorshid 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random information. Doesn't meet definiion for a notable location.Obina 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The location is not notable for an encyclopedia, Merge relevant parts into the Bam Margera article. Dimitrii 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete but this does not need it's own article. What is next, Tom Cruise's boat, Al Pacino's car? Simply being owned by a famous person does not make the subject notable enough for a dedicated article, as the lack of content here seems to indicate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CKY crew or CKY (video series). 38.100.34.2 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Viva la Bam. Known for being a location in series. Afaik no CKY filming has been done in the house. Deizio talk 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as attack page. Kimchi.sg 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Braun
[edit]

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

Obvious vanity/nonsense page. Previous attempts at speedy-deletion and prod have been unsuccessful, so moving to AfD. --Elonka 05:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. It's subtle, but the second paragraph gives it away. So tagged. MER-C 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, obvious WP:VAIN, should Speedy Delete by WP:BULL and WP:SNOW - wtfunkymonkey 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it didn't start as an attack page, but it doesn't meet verifiability or notability guidelines. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the medical information discussed on this page is fascinating :P Missvain 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abida Kabir Mart
[edit]

Abida Kabir Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:V, and even if verified may fail WP:CORP ("one of the" largest supermarket chains in India but only manages US$1.5mm in annual sales?). Zero relevant hits on Factiva (which includes several leading Indian English-language newspapers) for Abida Kabir Mart, AKM and A King Mart. Can't find any relevant hits on google. India has a large and vibrant English language media industry, and English is its main language for internet use, so sources should be available online if this chain really is prominent (sources need to prove prominence of course). No Apu jokes, please. Bwithh 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Demiurge 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to failing WP:CORP, appears to be original research and is unverified. Also reads quite like an ad/prospectus-and a poor one at that. Seraphimblade 12:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete $1.5 million might sound like a lot of money, but in business terms that's quite small, especially considering that that number is sales rather than net profit. To put things into perspective, the US grocery industry makes about $1.2 trillion each year, so if this were an American chain its market share would be approximately 00.00001% That isn't much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just the latest in an epidemic of Indian commercial spam. Is someone getting paid to put these up? --Aaron 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- STTW (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I would like to point out that because of the conversion rate of dollar/rupee, $1.5 million is actually 75 Million Rupees or 7. Crores. Point two. Please don't equate between countries while voting for deletion Doctor Bruno 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd actually to look at the currencies on a purchasing power parity basis for everyday food, not the simple conversion rate - though whether its US$1.5mm or INR 7.2 crore (actually its more like ~6.7 crore; typical rule of thumb conversion is 45 rupees to the dollar), it's still a drop in the ocean given the size of India's food retail market (US$180billion or ~INR 8.1 trillion in 2004[24]) Bwithh 23:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Crack
[edit]

Mr. Crack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BIO - crz crztalk 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Geez, nowadays you can't take a second to finish a nomination without someone else doing it for you :-) Assertion of notability not clear in the article. Article was speedied deleted under A7, but restored after suggestion of minor notability. Only notable reference appears to be this one. Published a book, "Mr. Crack", but official site can't be currently accessed. -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on two blog entries [25][26], he seems like a local character but I'm still not seeing any evidence of notability. The article is still original research. "Sorry mum and dad, no crack for me today, I'm cutting down". -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting guy, but NN. Gzkn 08:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. Sr13 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even though we all should be cutting down on our crack today! SkierRMH,12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Google shows some blog coverage and such, but Google News Archive brings just a couple of very trivial mentions, not enough to qualify as realiable sources. If anybody can come up with a good source I'd probably keep this, but as it is it isn't verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability = speedy delete. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Authoring a book is an assertion. - crz crztalk 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently sources and likely OR.-- danntm ^T _C 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting article, but not encyclopedia worthy. RichMac 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anomo 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep Interesting article, of probable local interest. 69.140.173.15 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --humblefool ® 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Parks Council
[edit]

Neighborhood Parks Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like some park organization. My question I want to ask, is it notable enough in the sense of an encyclopedia. And if so, we need to cleanup the external link frenzy... and the article. Note, most of the citations come from the organizations own website. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Neighborhood Parks Council is environmental organization representative of over 100 parks groups in San Francisco. There are many other environmental organizations listed in Wikipedia, so I don't see how this one is any different. I am new to Wikipedia, so any feedback is welcome. Maybe I'm trying too hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframald (talk • contribs) 09:50, November 12, 2006

I live in the San Francisco area (San Jose to be precise) and have never heard of this council. It's suprising, since I see billboards for things such as the BAAQMD daily and have been to many of the parks listed. Golden Gate Park in particular is very notable in my book and to San Franciscans in general, so I'd have to say conditional keep. So long as the article is seriously wikified, I see no problem keeping it, especially if we're talking CSD A7. thadius856_talk 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks notable to me: [27] shows google presence and it has a physical address and physical phone. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Please consider the following:

The Neighborhood Parks Council is ten years old, and just celebrated its ten year anniversary. The organization is actually a coalition of several hundred park and green open space groups in San Francisco. Isabel Wade, founder of the organization, has been one of the most important green leaders in San Francisco, and is one of the founders of the Friends of the Urban Forest and also the National Aids Memorial Grove located in Golden Gate park. The organization is located at 451 Hayes Street in San Francisco. The phone number is 415.621.3260. With regard to content of the Wikipedia entry, efforts were made to use original language and not to replicate information available elsewhere on the web. Numerous links are now included in the article to other parks and relevant topics that are central to the work of this organization. Yes, the folks who created these entries are Wikipedia newbies and would very much appreciate feedback with regard to style, content, and linkage.

Keep - The organization's existence is verifiable and it looks notable enough to me. Problems with the article can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardamon (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 November 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please provide suggestions on how to fix/improve problems with the article. Thank you.--Wolframald 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article badly needs references to reliable external sources (i.e. not just the organization's own website) which can verify the information in it. Books and journal articles would be ideal; magazine articles are okay. Government websites, websites of grantgiving foundations, and links to newspaper articles that are expected to remain available for a while are better than nothing. By the way, are you a principal of the Neighborhood Parks Association? Cardamon 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for these suggestions. Yes, I am a principle of NPC; my name is Wolfram Alderson, and I am Deputy Director of the Neighborhood Parks Council. One challenge with regard to external citations is that NPC is one of the leading sources of information with regard to neighborhood parks. There are many newspaper articles I can cite, and NPC is listed on the San Francisco Recreation and Parks official government website. I must admit that I am not too knowledgeable about how to create citations in wikipedia, but this is a welcome challenge.--Wolframald 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have added some of the requested references to external sources. I want to be cautious and not overdo it--the first comment in this discussion seemed to be concerned with the idea that there were too many external links. Again, any feedback in this reqard would be greatly appreciated.

Keep. The organization isn't of general importance, so I've removed the link in the Park article, but it's important enough within its context, Parks in San Francisco, California. JamesMLane t c 14:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically an ad for a local organization. --Aaron 21:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A local organization with about 22,000 google hits. On checking, it seems that almost all those hits are for the NPC that we are discussing, and not for other organizations. [28] Cardamon 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, I'd just like to say I'm impressed at the response to this AfD: Wikipedia conventions are always convoluted for those unfamiliar with the system, and Wolframald is showing an admirable willingness to address concerns. Secondly, while I don't personally have an opinion on whether this organisation meets the criteria to have an article of its own (though I would say that notability could be established easily enough by the addition of some press citations), if the final consensus is that it does not then I would suggest that at the very least a summary be merged into Parks in San Francisco, California, since this organisation does seem to be of some note in that context. (To avoid unbalancing the latter article, it would need expanding with summaries of the other organisations involved with SF parks; actually, it would rather benefit from that anyway...) — Haeleth Talk 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for the nod from the latter contributor that acknowledges that we are trying to create a wikipedia entry of value that meets the standards of the wiki community. The comment from Aaron that states basically an ad and the the comment from JamesMLane that the organization isn't of general importance seem harsh to me. Please explain how our entry about an organization that has dedicated itself to greening the City of San Francisco for the last 10 years is less relevant (or more of an ad) than the entries in Wikipedia for the the 7-11 retail chain, Charmin toilet paper, or the World Toilet Organization? The Neighborhood Parks Council is considered a model for urban efforts to unite neighborhoods around their urban assets. We work tirelessly to bring resources and support to run-down urban parks in underserved neighborhoods. I am truly impressed at the level of democracy involved in the wikipedia community, and I am a willing and eager student with regard to bringing the NPC entry up to standards. Please note that I have added press citations, and can easily add more, but still feel gunshy from the comments that suggested there were too many external links.--Wolframald 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "general importance" was the wrong term. I meant only that the organization isn't important enough, in the context of parks worldwide, to be linked to from the Park article. That article is about parks in general and shouldn't link to every organization anywhere that has anything to do with parks. Please note that I voted to keep the article about NPC, and that I edited it to bring it more in line with Wikipedia style conventions. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep The organization seems to exert notability, but I'm never to kean on people pushing any agendas through wikipedia, noble or otherwise. Wolframald is nearly the sole contributor to the article. RichMac (Talk) 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Neighborhood Parks Council (California) or Neighborhood Parks Council (San Francisco), or even Neighborhood Parks Council (San Francisco, California). 38.100.34.2 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyWith regard to reply by RichMac, there are nearly 150 member groups under the Neighborhood Parks Council and 14,000 folks actively on our mailing list, many of whom, I'm sure, would like to contribute to the Neighborhood Parks Council wikipedia entry, but are unlikely to do so while the article is scheduled for deletion. Highlighting me as the "sole contributor," seems diminishing and hardly rewards an earnest effort being made to rise up to the standards of the community. There is a learning curve here, and the sheer element of time involved, so if you seek a diversity of points of view that will strengthen the NPC Wikipedia entry, then simply approve it, so we can move forward with improving upon the article. BTW, my "agenda" is (a) to be passionate about a topic (related to preserving, sustaining, and developing green open space) and (b) creating a wikipedia entry that is worthy and meets the standards of the wikipedia community. There are thousands of entries in Wikipedia that portray much more of conspicuous agendas than this entry being submitted by park/green open space advocates in San Francisco (see Wikipedia entries: Young Republicans, Pro-life, the Revolutionary Communist Party,or the asphalt entry that provides links to the National Asphalt Pavement Association. The Asphalt Institute).--216.102.91.242 14:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Snyder
[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:BIO Resume-spam for daytime soap writer. Two-time Daytime Emmy and Writers Guild of America Award nominee. Bwithh 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two-time Daytime Emmy nominee sounds good enough for me. - crz crztalk 05:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, that is notable! Expand/Stub perhaps? Missvain 05:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Daytime Emmy nominations prove notability. Needs wikification though. Crystallina 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:yrgh 19 Nov. 06: DON'T DELETE: Snyder has been writing on soaps since the late 80s; almost 20 years now. This is NOT spam as suggested by another user. Snyder IS notable! Her current position is on B&B, a show seen by at least 6.4 million adults in North America! (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Keep contra to nom. --Dennisthe2 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Utterly fails WP:BIO. Nominations don't grant notability. Further, having no WP:RS writing about her, there can be no WP:V and this will never be more than a resume. Valrith 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head writer on multiple very popular television soap operas, in addition to two Emmy nominations. --Oakshade 16:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable in her field though the article is a stub. User:Dimadick

Weak keep although better sources seem hard to find. Probably write-ups in offline soap-culture magazines, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Valrith. Mere Nominations do nothing for notability; only wins do. And I'm not sure she'd pass WP:BIO even if she'd won. --Aaron 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Her nominations make her notable enough for mine but it reads like a CV at the moment. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notableXpendersx 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write. As written now, looks like a resumé. 38.100.34.2 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. The article needs to be cleaned up. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schmidt Confections
[edit]

Joseph Schmidt Confections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deletion nomination San Francisco chocolate maker of questionable encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:CORP. Possible corporate spam too. Bwithh 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Actually, they're well-known enough to have opened a Tokyo outlet (no reliable source yet, but you'll have to take my word for it as I bought some truffles from it a couple of Valentine's Days ago), but I'm horrified to discover that, like Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker of Berkeley, they were bought by Hershey last year (see 7th graf of this story. This explains why I can't find the damned outlet any more. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I believe you bought the Schmidt chocs, though perhaps the Tokyo outlet is a franchisee or perhaps its been closed down? The Schmidt website currently only lists 2 retail stores, both in California [29]. Bwithh 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I KNOW they're closed down because they weren't there LAST Valentine's Day, damnit -- though every other confectioner in Belgium and France seemed to have a store in the neighborhood, I swear. My point is, they WERE, at least briefly, international. And as for franchising, that's pretty much the only way into the Japanese market, as I understand it. The Japanese branches of the Doughnut Plant -- yes, the New York City doughnut maker -- and Nathan's Famous, for example, are clearly not run by native English speakers, given the prose I see at their locations: the menu at Nathan's describes the chopped onions with the phrase "you can enjoy hard" -- as opposed to the soft grilled onions, is what they presumably mean.

As for media mentions, they seem to be name-checked frequently (is in this New York Times travel article, "Where to Get a Chocolate Fix" -- the third place mentioned is very good, by the way -- or this LA Times story.) --Calton | Talk 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Torn on this one, because the article reads like a blatant advertisement, and the article's author also contributed some ~~pretty ridiculous~~ spam to the chocolate truffle article (~~crediting the company's founder with the invention of the chocolate truffle(!), accompanied, of course, by~~ a link to their website). However, they do appear to have some notoriaty [30], and are somewhat in line with the Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker company, which (obviously) has an article and doesn't appear to be any more or less notable, and they have both been recently bought out by Hershey. Wavy G 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Los Angeles Times story above claims, in passing, that "Joseph Schmidt set up shop in 1983 in San Francisco and popularized the 'American truffle,' big, egg-shaped chocolates differentiated from more traditional confections by their bold, bright designs", so the claim as actually rendered in the chocolate truffle article ("Joseph Schmidt, a San Francisco chocolatier, and founder of Joseph Schmidt Confections, is credited with the creation of the 'American truffle' - a half-egg shaped chocolate coated truffle") doesn't seem too off-base -- subject to verification, of course. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kinda see what they're saying now--He created (or popularized--still fuzzy on that one???) that particular type of truffle. It just came off like your typical, run-of-the-mill "So-and So is credited with the invention of teh Intarnets, w00t!" Afd nonsense to me at first. I retract that from my comment. Wavy G 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand/clean up AfD is not cleanup. They sell these at my local gourmet grocery store. They're actually good, but the article needs improvement too. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, do you have an argument for keeping the article? Bwithh 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The implication, I believe, is that they have distribution outside the two retail stores. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Wavy G and Calton. --Oakshade 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company has no independent existence, and wasn't notable when it did exist; at most, merits a couple of sentences in the Hershey entry. WMMartin 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi, Playtex, and Brylcreem have no independent existence, either (all being owned by Sara Lee), and yet, blue links. And inventing the American-style chocolate truffle, if verifiable, is no small thing. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please the company is notable and invented the american chocolate truffle Yuckfoo 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Wavy G and Calton. bbx 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-wording
[edit]

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

E-wording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, unreferenced neologism. Does not meet WP:NEO. Elonka 05:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. e-neologism? hmmmm... SkierRMH,12:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. E-yew. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Delete for what reason? not partisan, doesn't promote any particular company. needs more background info and detail, though. User:Linguelle— Linguelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Unsourced, unreferenced neologism as above. Fan-1967 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Delete Source and reference are its use in industry jargon. May not be mainstream term, but is a valid term used to describe a service. K2Ked 19 Novemeber 2006)— K2ked (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Saying it's industry jargon is insufficient. Sources are needed to Verify that it is in widespread usage. Fan-1967 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone research or provide relevant personal knowledge here and explore exactly how widely-used the term is in the communications industry? If it is widely used, then it shouldn't be deleted. If it truly is an obscure term, then get rid of the article. Aaron2wiki 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)— Aaron2wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We don't accept personal testimony, here. Please cite sources. The requirement for sources was pointed out in the nomination. Uncle G 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-Delete, I guess To answer Aaron's comment, I work for a Canadian marketing firm and I've come across the term several times, but had no idea what it meant, so I actually searched for it on Wikipedia and came across this debate. That's just my two cents, though. K2Ked 06:25, 20 November 2006
Read what Uncle G said just above. Personal testimony ("I've heard this term") is not an acceptable substitute for citations from Reliable Sources. Voting repeatedly, without offering sources, is pointless. -- Fan-1967 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not verifiable. Wickethewok 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up, you deletion nazis. In fact, why don't we delete everything that isn't already universally-known and has 100% consensus among all wikipedia users? Then we'll ensure we REALLY have great content. Linguelle 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ColourBurst 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Linguelle's point, in perhaps more respectful terms. We can't be too eager to delete every new thing that's posted, especially when it's clearly an informative article or has the potential to be. So I would say hold onto it and try to get more contributions from users who are familiar with the subject. Jofan 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except that doesn't actually agree with the actual policy WP:NEO which says neologisms are to be avoided unless they're in widespread use, as documented by reliable sources. The reliable sources are missing. ColourBurst 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I learned something new, and the topic is notable, but the article seems to be original research. Can the content be verified? 38.100.34.2 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lewis (philosopher)
[edit]

Peter Lewis (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not demonstrate that the subject yet meets our generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. He is a published professor but all professors publish. There is no evidence that he passes the "average professor test".
Note: This article was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher). That decision was closed in Aug 2005 as "no consensus". The article remains essentially unimproved since that time. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added that he is Assistant Professor. This is a weaker criterion for inclusion than full professor at a major university. He publishes actively (as the quest for tenure encourages). I do not see awards and honors listed, but it is interesting to see someone outside the physical sciences and mathematics analyzing the philosophical implications of the paradoxes in modern physics. Edison 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. There are no published works about the subject that are from sources independent of the subject itself. -- Satori Son 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's a prof, and he publishes real research. This is a lot better than the crackpots that usually come up on AfD. HEL 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, but without third-party sources, we cannot properly verify the importance of his work. In fact, much of this article looks like original research. For example, there is no source for the statement, "Lastly, Peter Lewis has shown formal inconsistencies in the conspiracy interpretation of quantum mechanics. While such interpretations are universally rejected, such a formal debilitating blow had yet to be stuck against them." We have some fairly serious WP:V issues here because of the lack of notability. -- Satori Son 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: for living persons of uncertain notability, I lean towards deletion in respect of the subject's personal privacy. Then again, I seem to recall an extremely controversial Peter Lewis in academia; if he is one and the same, he is very notable, but as I see no mention of any controversy in this article, he is unlikely to be the person whom I'm thinking of. 69.140.173.15 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sometimes it is not the person but the theories that are notable. That requires the person to be mentioned.Rough 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But as I said above, we don't have any reliable sources that confirm even the theories are notable, much less the article subject. -- Satori Son 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep His interpretation of quantum mechanics is a notable one, & not in the current mainstream, but taken seriously. At least 7 out of his 11 primary works are in the leading journals in the subject. The only thing lacking is that the editors of the article in question didnt put it strongly enough & give enough sources. There have been many comments in academic and other journals. They should be sent a message to that effect. The last thing I'd worry about is personal privacy. DGG 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Will those arguing to keep this page commit to improving it or will this sit for another year unimproved? If someone will start working on it, I'll withdraw the nomination. (One editor has made some minor changes but the fundamental questions of sourcing and demonstration of notability within the article remain untouched.) Rossami (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who says the 'average professor test' has any standing - I'd like to know? If this has been to AfD once, why bring the same article back? Charles Matthews 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This first AfD ended with "No Consensus", which resulted in keeping the article only by default. Looks like déjà vu all over again. -- Satori Son 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legitimate philosopher, but the article needs work, especially the waffle in the "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" section. Stumps 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Habits
[edit]

The Bad Habits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable band. Missvain 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails Glorified Garage Band test. SkierRMH,12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, possibly speedy. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chisrule 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep due to withdrawn nomination. No idea why I couldn't find anything. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four-Hour Fugue
[edit]

The Four-Hour Fugue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~~Non-notable short story, I can't find any references. Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak Keep - Google seems to back up the idea that it was nominated for a Hugo Award. Where these fall in the world of creative writing I'm not sure (and neither am I sure whether a nominee is as notable as, say, one for an Oscar), but it could well scrape over the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hugo is one of the most prominent awards for fiction in the science fiction genre. ~~Receiving~~ Being nominated for one makes this noteworthy within the genre. Shimeru 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it was nominiated for a Hugo then it's notable. The Hugo is one of the most prestigious awards in science fiction, even being nominated is a big deal for them. Ben W Bell talk 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hugo Award nomination. Could do with a bit of expansion though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not too surprising that there's not much on-line, since the story is from the seventies, but the Locus Magazine link confirms the Hugo nomination. The article is weak (didn't even name the author, a detail I fixed), but the story seems to be notable enough. Xtifr _tälk 10:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This story appeared in a magazine in 1974, and was selected for a "Year's Best SF" anthology too. I have no view on whether it should stay, because the criteria for keeping a work of fiction are not clear to me. However, in the absence of criteria I would say only rarely does a story justift an actual article, rather than mention in context; nothing in that way makes it notable. By the way, Hugos are as close to an Oscar as you can get in the written science fiction world, and only 5-6 items per category make the nomination list. Notinasnaid 10:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, perhaps bordering on no consensus. The outcome is the same regardless. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter cast
[edit]

Harry Potter cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listcruft U15896 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) — U15896 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete What is this? I got kind of confused reading this. This table is not really necessary. One could just look for the character and find the exact information. I say delete. As much as I love Harry Potter, delete. K yo cat^meow! 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRUFT. Nothing new of value in this article. MartinDK 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I'm never completely sanguine about new users whose first contribution is an AfD nomination, but this does seem redundant. Shimeru 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my mind after Fbv's overhaul. Shimeru 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. --Dennisthe2 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant...per nom. Sr13 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superfluously redundant... SkierRMH,12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. - Mig ^(Talk) 14:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going against the general consensus here, just becuase that's the kind of radical I am, but I also think this list would be extremely convenient to anyone who wants a quick reference of who's in what movie. Sure, it is "redundant" in that each character page says which movies they are in, but it seems much easier to come here if you're wanting to look this all up at once. I don't know the first thing about Harry Potter, and it makes sense to me (well, until you scroll down half-a-screen and can no longer see which movies the actors correspond with). And whoever created it, it looks like they put lot of hard work into putting this together. Good work. Wavy G 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not clear what this is redundant with. Is there another list? If so, this should be merged in the usual way; if not, this is certainly a useful and encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia's HP coverage. Also, I must note that the nom provided no grounds for deletion. -- Visviva 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No problems with verifiability or reliable sources, and I could see how it could be useful to see at-a-glance who played who in what movie, especially since some of the roles have switched actors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redundancy is not an actual reason to delete, and this page does seem to serve a useful list in terms of looking at the information at a glance. Since this series is a book to movie, this may be useful to some folks who want to look at the appearance of a character in a movie versus the books. It could use a little fixing so you could keep better track of the movies/books, but that's a minor edit. FrozenPurpleCube 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say this falls outside the realm of cruft, as it could be of interest to non-Potter fans. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant with the presence of character articles. Interrobamf 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to List of Harry Potter movie cast members. Useful and encyclopedic, and certainly too large to include in Harry Potter. —Cuivi é nen 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm curious to know how a user in his first three edits nominated an article for deletion and was aware of the term "cruft." I don't think I learned the meaning of that word for at least two months into my Wikijourney. While I admit that I'm biased towards this article since I edit the page frequently (and gave it a complete make-over from when it was really a mess), I must say neutrally that this list serves a purpose just as any other. For those who suggest to merge into the film article or look at character entries, you aren't seeing the purpose of a list: to gather the information in one place, rather than having to diverge and get it at each individual article. Additionally, it is helpful to track the changes over time of a character (like Andrew Lenahan said), which is more difficult to do in a character article. I agree that the page should be renamed and that it could be cleaned-up to reflect differences from the book, but that does not merit discussion here. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the good points you make here, but I would like to point out that cruft predates Wikipedia. It appears in Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File. I was aware of the term "cruft" before there was a Wikipedia. --DavidConrad 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Update: I followed a few links, and I found this 1959 edition of the dictionary of the Tech Model Railroad Club by Peter Samson which shows that the word was in use among the members of the club at that time. Wow! --DavidConrad 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? You learn something new everyday… Anyway, since it's not part of colloquial speech (unless you're nerdy and you talk in Wikitalk ;D) -- at least not from what I hear daily -- it struck me as unusual. I certainly learned it on Wikipedia, but I see that's not always the case. Thanks! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per all above "keeps". Cbrown1023 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename. I was honestly expecting to vote delete on this one, but it isn't actually particularly crufty: it's a good way of presenting the information. Not sure about renaming because it isn't exactly a "list". — Haeleth Talk 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as interesting synthesis of info from various articles, though technically unreferenced since all its info comes from Wikipedia articles. Edison 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just gone through and referenced all the material, something I've been meaning to do for a while but was inspired by this AfD. Since movies 1-4 have been confirmed as completely on the IMDb, I cited that for the first four columns, and proceeded to copy and paste each individual ref from the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) article, so that everybody appearing in the fifth column is cited after their name in the table. I hope this meets with approval. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article provides a very convenient glance at all the characters. Jamesino 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no other article that tracks the changes of casting througout the series. I think it's useful to many people to be able to see this. --ctachme 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. This is the kind of listing that not being limited by paper allows for. Markovich292 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — per User:Wavy G. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Harry Potter. 38.100.34.2 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hubies
[edit]

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

Non-Notable band. Pretty sure they fail WP:MUSIC. Missvain 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any chart topping songs, no gold or platinum records, or anything in WP:MUSIC. It could be fixed, but would still fail the criteria. Don't think I've ever even heard of them.K yo cat^meow! 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New band, and their sole claim to fame is their page on Myspace?! Um, no. Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Delete. --Dennisthe2 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allmusic guide doesn't have the band or the one album claimed in the article (which strongly suggests it was self-published or, at least, never found a distributor). No claims of notability in the article, and no external evidence of notability. I've tagged it for Speedy Delete. Xtifr _tälk 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good work, people. DS 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hutber's law
[edit]

del thoroughly nonnotable neowitticism. withoiut wikipedia, [31 unique google links`'mikkanarxi 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete - per above

keep -- a widely known concept, cited in Hansard, the Guardian etc. Article is referenced. A better google search is: [31] --mervyn 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as currently non-notable. Take heart, though - I suspect even Murphy was non-notable at one time. --Dennisthe2 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep very well known amongst people who know what they're talking about. Dave 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on lack of widespread use, I guess most don't know what we're talking about. May catch on like Murphy and Parkinson. Hasn't yet. Fan-1967 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely small number of Google hits suggest that this isn't very widespread. I guess it's hard to call this a neologism after so many years. Didnt-catch-on-ogism? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ For a coined term to be included, references the term itself are needed. Not simply references to the use of the term. If this can be demonstrated to meet WP:NEO I may change my vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per danntm's citations to multiple sources discussing the meaning of the term, seems to meet WP:NEO. Those should go into the article if they have not already. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Restating my keep comments made before the relist: this is a serious article, with ref. There is a clear citation in Hansard with Sir Geoffrey Howe crediting the phrase to Patrick Hutber: "I am glad that my hon. Friend still remembers with affection the inventor of Hutber's law, the late Patrick Hutber." --mervyn 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While that confirms that it exists and that atleast one person reffered to it's inventor, that is a long way from demonstrating notability, I don't think anyone is denying that the law exists. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that exactly demonstrates notability -- a phrase used in Parliament by a cabinet minister is just what Wikipedia should be explaining and commenting on. --mervyn 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? Perhaps WP:NEO is pertitnent here, it says To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. I don't think a cabinet minister simply making reference to an expression satisfies this guideline, but then it is a guideline and you are welcome to think differently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighInBC. Henning Makholm 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Neutral in light of new citations. Still unclear to me whether the law is supposed to mean that decisionmakers will consciously use "improvement" as an euphemism for for reductions, or that honestly intended improvements will inevitably end up as deteroriation for unforeseen reasons, or both ... Henning Makholm 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just ran a LEXIS search, and it turned up 28 news sources using "Hutber's law," most of which use refer to the specific law. For example:
"Not a Credit to the Banks," Daily Mail, 12 April 1992, p. 6: referring to a problem with an upgrade to ATMs "What a fine example of the operation of Hutber's law - that improvements invariably make things worse."

"Leading Article: Figuring it Out," The Guardian, 15 April 1994, p. 21: "'another case of Hutber's law, that 'progress brings deterioration'".

Hopefully, I can bring forth a few more later, but I have to go right now.-- danntm ^T _C 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix: Here are a few more citations to consider:
The Scotsman, 13 Sept. 1994: "One of the immutable laws of business, according to the late Patrick Hutber, one of the best regarded financial journalists, was that improvement meant deterioration."

Tim Satchell, "Patience is the hardest virtue: Tim Satchell explains why it took two years to secure the money he was owed," Daily Telegrah, 20 January 2001, p. 06: "[The] Woolf [reforms to the legal system] went the way of Hutber's Law, that great truism revealed by the City commentator Patrick Hutber who said, 'improvement means deterioration'"

"Pay any price to beat poverty," New Statesman, 26 November 2001, "Hutber's law, coined by a now deceased journalist, states: 'Improvement means deterioration.'"

I thus believe, Hitber's Law is well used in British news media, and satisfies WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:CITE.-- danntm ^T _C 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather weak keep; while hardly a term on the tip of everyone's tongue, danntm's citations do establish a certain amount of currency over a significant period of time. — Haeleth Talk 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 14:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SheezyArt
[edit]

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

Not notable company, seems a bit spammy. I prodded it and it was removed by an anon IP. My nom is Delete Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as it is, it qualifies for {{db-web}}, no assertion of notability. Original research from start to finish. In the case of web forums this points straight to WP:AUTO. However, it does have a fairly respectable Alexa rank [32]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It has its fanbase. --Dennisthe2 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Islay. So tagged. MER-C 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as non-notable, WP:BIO refers. How did this get to AfD? (aeropagitica) 10:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Richi
[edit]

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

Its just some guy that is posting pure vandalism Eggy49er 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7. Already tagged. MER-C 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Dogshit
[edit]

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

is this notable? its certainly not very interesting. Xorkl000 07:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. MartinDK 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of all possible keeps. Esham is a notable artist and one could argue that a compilation of his early songs defines a specific style of music. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, poor article, but as an album release of a musician who passes WP:MUSIC, it passes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Esham. Mallanox 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Albums generally get their own articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to give it its own article if it was more than just a track listing. Mallanox 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim or proof of notability. Edison 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the rapper's article? He meets notability, and albums of notable artists are notable for our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is not a good reference. I do not agree with the bootstrap process, that he has an article, so all his albums are notable enough for articles, and then the albums have articles, so all the songs on them are notable enough for articles. The article for the artist also lacks references to show notability, other than links to numerous articles about his albums which are just lists of songs, and links to a couple of blogs. That article and his other album articles should be looked at for Afd as well in the future. Edison 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's actually saying that the songs are notable. Just that the artist and - therefore - the album is notable. There'd have to be better sources on the artist (certainly the liner notes of one of his albums which I have feature quotes from a series of performers explaining how influential he was, so it'd be a matter of tracking those down in a physical presence), and if it comes to it I'm willing to brave underground hip-hop fandom and hunt them out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Cleanup - i'm satisfied that it is notable - but its a very poor addition to the world's body of knowledge on this subject --Xorkl000 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Detroit ;-) Ohconfucius 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a list of things or directory. It needs more than a track listing to stay as an article. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect and briefly mention in the Esham article. While the (somewhat controversial) consensus on WP:Music is that albums generally get their own article, this stretches that point. This article is just a track listing of a compilation album. Unless there is some evidence that the compilation itself is somehow independently significant, I suggest that WP would not be diminished if the Esham article merely mentioned that he released a compilation/greatest hits album in 1996. Not every repackaging of previous material needs an article. -Kubigula (ave) 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content, just a list of tracks, we are not gracenote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT. If this rapper has other more notable albums, fine. But this is not worthy much more than a very brief mention in the main article. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information: rapcruft neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-19 08:31Z

Colin stone
[edit]

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

Not a real article. Its just vandalism Eggy49er 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete {{db-attack}}, seems to be already tagged. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I agree. MER-C 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crash My Model Car
[edit]

Crash My Model Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was accidentally speedied in vandalized state. A deletion review overturned the deletion but called for a proper AfD. Prior AfD in January was closed as "no consensus". Procedural listing, so I abstain. trialsanderrors 07:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no claim to notability. is made There's apparently an EP scheduled for release in early December, but that doesn't really say much. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the content which Aecis restored, but I still don't see any claim to notability for the band "Crash My Model Car". The band which begat this one - Poor Old Ben - might have been notable, and might belong at their own page, but this one hasn't gone on tour or released an album yet. (This does sort of bring up a bit of a philosophical question of when a band is still "the same band" - if all of the members are replaced, but the name stays, is it still the same band? If the name changes? etc, etc.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability in the article, and AMG turns up nothing, which basically means they're unsigned and their forthcoming EP is probably self-published (not that a single EP would meet WP:MUSIC). Xtifr _tälk 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as failing to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've restored the content that was blanked prior to the speedy deletion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article looks more interesting now, but none of the information is backed up by any secondary sources, and, very tellingly, neither of the names "Crash My Model Car" nor "Poor Old Ben" turn up anything on Allmusic! "Poor Old Ben" has a listing on last.fm, but no listeners at this moment, and their top track peaked at 13 listeners in the last six months. I found a reference that Poor Old Ben played at a festival in Glasgow, but...lots of obscure bands get booked into festivals. I'm fond of trying to salvage band articles, but in this case, I see one album under a different name (and no sign the album was on a major or "important indie" label), and one planned album on an important indie. WP:MUSIC wants two released albums on a major or important indie. Even with the restored information, they still seem to fall far short of meeting our notability guidelines. Xtifr _tälk 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's pretty clear that this article lacks the sources or albums needed to pass WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability per WP:Music. Edison 00:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a {{db-repost}} of deleted material. (aeropagitica) 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundying (sexual)
[edit]

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

Delete as obvious WP:NEO, WP:NFT, possibly some sort of WP:COI page. Blatantly fails WP:RS. Not even worth wasting the time bringing it to AfD, but I can't find an appropriate speedy criterion, and it's a contested PROD, so here we are. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Gzkn 08:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as {{db-bio}} or {{db-attack}}, it's just a made up in school article about some guy on a hockey team. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Utter nonsense, unsubstantiated and just plain complete WP:BOLLOCKS. MartinDK 08:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per G1. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. --Dennisthe2 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salt article - checking user info for the creator and his talk page (user is user:Chris01720, he's been prone to recreating the article. Should probably be salted. --Dennisthe2 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt the earth if necessary. --Calton | Talk 09:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio from [33]. Kimchi.sg 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Walter The Thunderbird
[edit]

Big Walter The Thunderbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Autobiographical content taken directly from the website. While the content is autobiographical, there has been an attempt made to show importance to the music industry - however, there have been no citations or major improvements to the page since creation. Sigma 7 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not recommending speedy deletion, since there may be merit for this page. --Sigma 7 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [34]. -- Whpq 13:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Salomon
[edit]

Harris Salomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Producer of dubious notability. Sources provided are either self-published, make no mention of the subject, or double back to Wikipedia. No independent sources to verify claims made in the article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little research -- IMDb shows many credits for Dr. Ruth, none credited as "The Dr. Ruth Show". "Real Stories" and "AfterDrive" both listed, neither lists Mr. Salomon in credits. "Melina" appears to be a long-standing "work in progress" that has never been produced. Atlantic Overseas Pictures has no credits to their name.69.60.13.146 (talk)

If memory serves, IMDB listings are user-submitted. The credits claimed for Mr. Salomon on his IMDB page are not backed up by their respective pages or flat-out don't exist. DarkAudit (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, user submitted and verified by IMDb before they are added. He can claim to be Producer of AfterDrive on his own page, but if it were verifiable then his name would be listed as Producer on the AfterDrive page.69.60.13.146 (talk)
Only extant listing found for Famous Footsteps -- Craig Wirth's resume IDs himself as Executive Producer and Host, doesn't mention Salomon. Only listings that mention Salomon are Salomon's own (apparently self-written) entries in IMDb and Wikipedia.69.60.13.146 (talk)

Comment. I have no opinion on this article, but I just wanted to confirm the anon here, user-submitted data is in fact vetted and confirmed by IMDb staff before being posted. It has come a long way in terms of reliability. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"flower of the fence" is being produced this fall. budget is 12ml. please see attched links.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956024.html?categoryid=1443&cs=1
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i2d2333041a2e651010d72caa9272ecb0
famous footsteps was co executive produced by salomon and wirth. salomon- wirth productions is credited as production company.

Does not meet WP:BIO

Again -- Craig Wirth's resume IDs himself as Executive Producer and Host, doesn't mention Salomon. Only listings that mention Salomon are Salomon's own self-written entries in IMDb and Wikipedia. See link below...

http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_983_1165506904.pdf.

Links provided to Hollywood Reporter and Variety are to standard "press release" coverage by industry media, not reportage. Both reports date from 2006 and note production to begin in Fall 2007.69.60.13.146 (talk)

Delete as non-notable. He has an IMDB page, but it doesn't show a single credit for anything. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lots of Wikipedians like it, but no evidence was presented that it meets WP:WEB. W.marsh 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StickDeath
[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEB criteria for notability. The article does not attempt to meet the criteria. The article is undersourced and contains weasel words. Alexa shows that it may have been popular in 2000 but its rank has dropped steadily since its inception as a website. Ultimately, just not seeing its validity as an article. ju66l3r 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why the the article still exists...fails WP:WEB and WP:WEASEL. Sr13 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous at the time. Either these articles (ones about people/things that will not be famous in 20 years) should never exist - and then we delete almost the entire wikipedia - or we should keep this article. Dave 13:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If it really was "famous at the time", this should be a simple matter. Uncle G 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that if we delete articles about subjects that were famous, but no longer are, like this article, then we would have to remove a heck of a lot of wikipedia (although that would get rid of a lot of the cruft, which could be a good thing...) Dave 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uncle G's argument has nothing to do with the article having been famous. It has to do with sources. If you can provide reliable non-trivial third-party source coverage, the article stays. Otherwise, the article goes. ColourBurst 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, and I don't see any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 5 minutes of internet "fame" does not mean notability. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is more or less what stickdeath had. Nevertheless, it sticks in my mind, as it probably does for almost everyone who was a teenage nerd in 2000. I have tried to find verifiable sources, however, and have failed. Perhaps WP:WEB needs updating? Dave 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to trust an article without a third-party reliable source vouching for the content. It not only fails WP:WEB, it fails WP:V and verifiability's one of the core policies on Wikipedia. ColourBurst 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if the article can be fixed. Was very notable for a time, decline in popularity does not detract from this. --Fittysix 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely known was featured on a TV program, if only I could remember what. I'm amazed this is up for deletion I don't think it fails WP:WEB. Mallanox 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The idea that it was featured on a television program makes a case, but without it, it fails WP:WEB. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dave and Mallanox. Dionyseus 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references prove notability. Edison 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was quite popular in its time, though admittedly it didn't remain so. However, I'm under the opinion that once something is notable enough to deserve an article, always notable to have the article; in other words, things can't lose notability. Keep for historical purposes. --The Way 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, necessary to demonstrate that they are in fact notable in the first place. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Not a single source has been cited to demonstrate this so far. Uncle G 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can the original poster tell me how to make Alexa statistics go back to the year 2000? I can't figure how to make them show up any earlier than 2002. If the website was indeed popular in 2000, my vote would be a "keep" for the reason given by Uncle G & The Way. Esn 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Popularity as determined by an Alexa ranking is not a substitute for reliable sources. ColourBurst 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've heard of this, and although it would be difficult to source, I think it's valid as an article. Nihiltres 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless WP:WEB is met, then there is no question about it. Having heard of it is not enough, we need multiple, independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability. I need to make a macro for that last sentence. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' This was a popular website and part of internet meme history.Ocatecir 05:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Bay Village
[edit]

Stockland Bay Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. By deleting the info that violates this information, you are left with no further info than the Bateau Bay, New South Wales page. Todd661 09:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the shopping centre is indeed notable, however, if the directory-type info is removed, the subject would be given justice with a larger representation in the Bateau Bay, New South Wales article. See also WP:LOCAL Todd661 04:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable mall. MER-C 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bateau Bay, New South Wales. There are still some snippets that can be merged in and the redirect will enable the information to be found. TerriersFan 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. There are 58 references to this shopping centre in Ebbsco's Australia-New Zealand database. However, it reads like a shopping centre directory at the moment. An alternative would be a merger with the Bateau Bay article. Capitalistroadster 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster, or else merge as per WP:LOCAL if the keep fails. JROBBO 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep I am only voting keep because it appears as if the actual subject probably does meet notability standards. However, the article in its current form is absolutely unacceptable; paradigm example of a directory. The whole page needs to be blanked and restarted. We don't need to be linking to every single shop at all. --The Way 09:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have cleaned it up but I still think that it would be better in the main article so the reader can find all the info in one place. TerriersFan 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The contents of my sock drawer are more notable. WMMartin 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the place where the shopping center is located. 38.100.34.2 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster. bbx 08:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville TV Tower
[edit]

Huntsville TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slightly more noteable than your average telephone pole, I guess, but really not noteable enough to be in an encyclopedia Descendall 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I didn't even go to List of masts before I nominated this. I think a whole lot of these things are probably non-noteable. Do we really need an article about a radio tower that was less than 500 feet tall and was knocked down in 1945? There's a pretty big water tower near my house, but I've never even dreamed about writing an article about it. --Descendall 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see how this could become an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a FCC antenna tower database (and one exists already, as the article points out). What is there to say about this tower? They came, they built it, it was a bit easier for people to receive TV and radio broadcasts in Huntsville, it needs maintenance from time to time... Fun fact: There are 87,212 active, inactive and dismantled towers, masts, tower arrays and tower multiple structures registered in the USA, according to the FCC database. Of these, 287 were 400 feet or more Above Ground Level (which is not the same as how tall they are), and 121 were 500 feet or more AGL. Bwithh 09:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know see that this is on List of tallest structures in the world. Looking at that list, one can see that there are a large number of TV and radio towers that are much smaller than this one that have articles on them. If this goes, most, if not all of those articles should go too. If those other articles are to stay, then this article should stay. --Descendall 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. -- Kicking222 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bwithh. -- Kicking222 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - What's next, cell towers? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's like the architectural equivalent of a dicdef. "It's a tower, here's the coordinates. Bye." No thanks. --Aaron 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect-free merge into Minor Hill, Tennessee. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raaahg! If the Eiffel Tower can have an article, then certainly ... no, wait, that doesn't follow. Delete this and similar articles, with no prejudice against recreation in the improbable case that somebody finds something encyclopaedic to say about it. Henning Makholm 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a mast. Whoop-te-doo. No proof it is notable. Next it will be articles about municipal watertowers. Edison 00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to argue for keeping it since it is on the List of tallest structure in the world, but then I actually looked at that list... now that is an example of a list that's gotten out of hand, someone should trim that by about 3/4ths. --The Way 09:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First NN schools, then NN churches, then NN malls, then NN streets, then NN shops, and now NN towers. We should have been tougher on schools when we had the chance. WMMartin 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment of Descendall, above. 69.140.173.15 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? I nominated it for deletion. --Descendall 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Umar
[edit]

Family tree of Umar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A prior AfD from April was overturned at deletion review and is listed here now for repeat consideration. Procedural listing, so I abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a list of geneology entries. MER-C 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a whole category of these. Punkmorten 10:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Wikipedia is not a Gen Tree means that we should not make trees of non-notable people, having non-notable relatives. That is an extension of WP:NOT indiscriminate info. However, this does not included royalties, since almost all people in royalty houses are notable. This would not include single notable people with lots of NN relatives, but as said, being notable and having lots of notable people does merit a gen tree on WikiPedia. Just look att Category:Family trees and List of family trees. Now, with this said, the family of Umar is about as notable as you get in Sunni Islam. He is a Rashidun and Sahaba, all his same-timed relatives are also Sahaba and his daughter is a Mother of the Believers. His son is also an important Sahaba, and his grandsons are Salaf. Also, his genealogy back is relevant, Muslim biographies often include this to show distance relationship with Muhammad. Sunni Muslim are proud to carry the name even today. He had also several wives. This information is notable and accurate, having Gen Trees in WikiPedia is established in List of family trees, and there is no one disputing the notability of Umar's family. --Striver 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, take a look at the systematic bias in List of family trees, only that is an argument for keeping this article. --Striver 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at the "In other languages" section. --Striver 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article lacks any context. Who is this Umar guy, what makes him important, and why does it matter what his family tree was? From the links, it appears to be about this Umar, ~~in which case it would be notable just like British monarchs' family tree~~. On closer inspection, it seems that his successor was elected, rather than succeeding him through relation like the Windsors, so I don't see the relevance of this article, unless Islam places some special significance on family trees/genealogy? Demiurge 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was elected, but its not like "Bush vs Kerry" elected, Umar was connected to Muhammad via marriage, and so was the two "finalists" in the election after him. family played an important role back then. It is not relevant to Umar, but all Shi'a twelver imams are connected via blood.--Striver 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reading Striver's comment, requesting that he transcribe his argument for notability into the article to establish context. (I know what-about arguments are frowned upon in AfDs, but if we can have SpongeBob SquarePants Family Trees then Umar deserves his family tree included too.) Demiurge 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's now taken care of: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants Family Trees. Sandstein 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my current improvments suffice. --Striver 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Genealogies of national-level monarchs (in this case, an Islamic caliph) are notable enough. Sandstein 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe references are to a blog or website and to other Wikipedia articles. Reliable and verifiable sources should be available if he is a companion of Mohammed. Also Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, so each individual listed would need reliable and verifiable sources. Edison 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rarely should we keep a family tree, but this appears to be one of the exceptions. The man the tree revolves around was the second caliph which is about as important as anyone in Islam can be. The other individuals on the tree lived either at the time or immediately following Muhammad and some to be important, despite the fact that the articles are stubs. The Article should be a bit more fleshed out, describe the importance of the family, but the notability is there. --The Way 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't my family tree, it's the family tree of notable people. Big difference. WMMartin 18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if kept, should at least link to 'Umar ibn al-Khattāb in order to provide context. 69.140.173.15 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does so in the very first line. --Striver 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Periscan
[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP in every way. Prod was removed. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the company's founders. These two assert minor notability though (wrote DeadAIM, was a radio DJ).

Sean Heiney (prod also removed)

James Dennis

Demiurge 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the company - no assertion of notability. So tagged. Delete the rest. MER-C 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Blench
[edit]

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

Subject of article seems non-notable. Possible conflict of interest? Marm^(t) 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What leads you to say there may be a COI? I'm not seeing it. As for the notability of the professor, he seems to have a rather large list of publications and books. About 600 google hits. I'm not entirely sure of how notable he is though. I'm going to stay neutral at this point in time. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One example of what makes me think this is possible COI is that the article states about some of his work "...This work finances much of his ethnolinguistic work and travel to conferences." - a fact both entirely irrelevant, and one that could not possibly be known by anyone not in close contact with Dr. Blench. Marm^(t) 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page, it seems that 81.132.98.146 is Roger Blench. Hut 8.5 12:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known scholar in the field of African languages and linguistics (he also has done quite some work in other fields, including ethnography and archaeology, but I'm not able to assess his stature or notability in those fields). Certainly notable, if not for the Google hits then for his numerous publications in various forums (including peer reviewed journals and volumes edited with other scholars of good reputation). Also note that he didn't edit the article himself except for adding a (rather long) list of publications; the sentence cited by Marm wasn't added or edited by him but by an unrelated anon in this edit. I don't see evidence of a conflict of interest. — mark ✎ 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Dr. Blench has numerous publications, including in peer reviewed journals, and including those written with respected scholars. I do doubt that this is merit for inclusion in wikipedia. For instance, in the department where I study, this could be said about most professors. However, how many of them appear in wikipedia? one (Bill Unruh). Having numerous publications, including those in peer reviewed journals is something nearly everyone in academia can claim, and therefore, unless you believe we must list everyone in academia, is insufficient grounds for keeping. I would also call attention to the fact that User:Mark Dingemanse who made the above comment is, except for anons and a now-inactive user, the only editor of Roger Blench and has been accused of being Roger Blench on the article's talk page. Not that I believe that, but I think it accurately reflects whether or not above user can be counted on for being objective in this case. Marm^(t) 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite a remarkable argumentation in an AfD. First, if you want to suggest that I want to keep the article because I'm sympathetic to Blench in person or something, I think you should look at what edits I have made to the article (and read the talk page more closely). Second, do you really want to imply that the vote of 'regular' editors (hardly a fitting appelation in my case, but okay) of an article should have less weight in an AfD? I think you should assume good faith, and assume that such editors may actually know better why the subject of the article would be notable (or not) than a passerby who nominates it for AfD.

I do agree however that not every academic should be included in Wikipedia. My vote simply reflects my opinion that Blench is notable enough for this article to be kept now that it has been created (even though I wouldn't have created it myself). — mark ✎ 15:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused: you don't think this article should have been created, yet you think it should be kept? That makes little sense to me.

I agree with your point in regards to frequent editors. I just felt you being the only named editor perhaps reflected your seeing something notable where no one else did. For an extreme example, see Kenneth Wajda (linked here so that it may perhaps catch an admin's eye and be erased more expediently!).Marm^(t) 08:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it shouldn't have been created, I was just saying that I wouldn't have created it myself (in my editing I usually focus on languages, not on linguists); I said that just to make clear that I really don't have a stake in this (I'm not trying to save my valuable edits or something like that). And trust me, I'm more of a deletionist than an inclusionist, in my own field as much as in other fields. — mark ✎ 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Follow the links to this page and you'll see that Blench is well-cited. If there is COI material in the page, then it should be edited. Delete is the wrong medicine for a notable subject. -- Shunpiker 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor of many books in his field. Noted scholar. Edison 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm not against the article being kept. Moreover, Dr. Blench could very well be a notable linguist in the field of African languages. But in that case the article needs to be improved such that it lists what exactly is notable about the subject.Marm^(t) 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for biography of living people of uncertain notability, I recommend deletion for privacy purposes, unless the subject of the article actually consents to be included in wikipedia. Not sure if the fact of 81.132.98.146 being the subject of the article is verified or not. 69.140.173.15 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per this discussion and previous referenced AfD on Doxbridge. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbridge Tournament
[edit]

See also Doxbridge (AfD discussion).

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

I don't really see how this is notable. There's no suggestion that there are any external sources that mention it and google only throws up the Junior Common Rooms of the Oxford, Cambridge and Durham colleges. It's claim to be the biggest collegiate sporting tournament is backed up only by its own website and isn't that impressive when you think that there are only six collegiate universities in England anyway. As for the word 'Doxbridge' - its a hideous neologism --Robdurbar 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

1.articles which are not deleted usually grow in time. The article on my secondary school being a great example 2. Usually only a word not liked by Oxbridge people thinking Durham is trying to add themsleves to their portmanteau. 3. A nice addition to Durham University navigation box thing which wikipedians have clearly worked hard on 4. Passes the google test and I tihnk it improves the Durham Unversity article. Generally just makes wikipedia closer to being the sum of all human knowledge. - unsigned comment by User:Francium12

What does point number 2 mean? btw, the nominator is a student at Durham Bwithh 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a point worth making. I must admit that I would accept this failing on the grounds of potential conflict of interest; but I thought it was delete worthy and so worth bringing for discussion. --Robdurbar 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an Oxbridge person, of course I don't like the word, thinking Durham is trying to add themselves to our portmanteau :-). In a more serious vein, I've never heard of the tournament in my time at Oxford, so IMO the event is not that notable even within the universities' communities; plus I agree with all of the nominator's arguments. -- Marcika 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it definitely is not the largest collegiate sports tournament in the UK - even the Oxford intercollegiate rowing races (Torpids and Eights) have more participants. -- Marcika 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oxbridge, where the term and tournament is already mentioned Bwithh 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Keep - I don't hold a particularly strong view, but I created the article originally (only a tiny stub - others have since added more information), so thought I'd throw in my thoughts. "Doxbridge" got around 300 google hits when I created it, almost all referring to the sports tournament. It now, suprisingly, gets about 4,800 hits, although a lot of these will be linked back to the article I created. However, its use has definantly increased and most of the hits again refer to the Doxbridge tournament. As someone at Cambridge (who has never been to Durham University) who hates the idea of Durham being compared to Oxbridge (it's NOT, I live in a village outside of Durham and hate it when people do this), I think the article actually clarifies that this is just a sports tournament. Indeed, one of the main reasons for creating the article was that by firmly attatching the view that "Doxbridge" = "sports tournament" (which is the truth) we could prevent the term "Doxbridge" being used to infer a greater affiliation if it were left to float around and attatch its own meanings. Note that "Doxbridge" links to the article. It's a win-win situation in my opinion. Logica 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not affiliated in anyway to the tournament, nor have I ever been to it (nor do I plan to) - not that that should matter anyway!!!!!!! Logica 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are dozens and dozens of inter-university games and meets, and with certain important exceptions they are not notable. This one certainly doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. WMMartin 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chic-ology
[edit]

Chic-ology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No references given, no assertion of notibility. Electric Eye (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article is unverified, uncited, and has little meaningful content.-- danntm ^T _C 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...only 2 non wikipedia hits for 'Chic-ology chic-o,' neither of which apply here. Probably falls under WP:HOAX. Would have been ~~better~~ funnier if chicology was described as the study of, well, "chicks." Markovich292 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete YARP YARP YARP YARP YARP YARP YARP YARP DS 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barking drunk
[edit]

Non-notable slang term. Does not pass WP:NEO, either. Previous attempts at speedy and prod have been unsuccessful. --Elonka 12:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dicdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 12:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Very few uses on the web. Hut 8.5 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless in-joke. --Folantin 13:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently This term was coined by Suki and Kari E. who came home one night so intoxicated that Suki, her own dog, barked at her because she was acting so strangely.. So it appears to be a protologism coined by Suki, a dog. Delete per nomination. And take more water with it. Tonywalton | Talk 13:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not Urban Dictionary. -- Marcika 19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search produces only 60 sites, not a notable enough term Ryanpostlethwaite 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tonywalton - that's priceless. I'm still laughing. It's funnier because it's true. riana_dzasta 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count Vampyre (novel)
[edit]

Count Vampyre (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unpublished work of fiction. Non-notable, unverifiable. Weregerbil 12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unreferenced. MER-C 12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, unverifiable, no entry for the author. Palfrey 14:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unpublished, unverifiable, possibly a hoax. -- Marcika 20:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, non-notable author, non-notable (in general), unverifiable, no working links to other related articles, no google hits, and I have some WP:AUTO concerns here. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 00:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatoo beak hanging
[edit]

Cockatoo beak hanging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: sounds like original work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowmanradio (talk • contribs)

Delete, original research (albeit good-faith). Demiurge 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cockatoo if sourced, else delete. La ï ka 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I can't find any articles about this behaviour. but if sources can be cited, then a merge to cockatoo would be appropriate. -- Whpq 13:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I love the pictures though - perhaps they could be used in the cockatoo or Umbrella Cockatoo articles? --Kurt Shaped Box 13:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author says that This interesting behavior has only been observed in the Umbrella cockatoo, or Cacatua alba by the author. It has been reported in other species.. I wonder whether that means only the author has observed it at all, or whether the author has only observed it in that species, though others have reported it in other species. Citing the "reports" would be good. Perhaps the author might like to ask about this on the reference desk rather thn in mainspace, as the article includes a request for information. Delete as it stands, unless sources are cited. Tonywalton | Talk 14:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT and WP:NOR, I see nothing within the article to suggest a merge into the genus article cockatoo, with references if this is a species unique trait then maybe merge into a species article. Gnangarra 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and no original research. Hello32020 16:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great pictures of cute bird. Original research. Edison 00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources for this phenomenon that I can find. Nothing at Google [35], Google Books [36] or Google Scholar [37] suggesting that if there has been something published on this phenomenon, it hasn't been given this name. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cockatoo if references can be provided otherwise Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 04:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete as per Laika and Longhair. Keep the pictures though if not a copyvio, they look good. JROBBO 04:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR.--cj | talk 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the pictures if there's a place for them, delete the original research. Seraphimblade 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I had a Cockatoo and they do like to hang from fingers. I say it is not really a notable subject, and without references it should be outright deleted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photos! Strong keep per WP:IAR (which is, by the way, an official policy). 38.100.34.2 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyssero
[edit]

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

Only one source, person's own website, cited. No indication that this passes WP:BAND. Seraphimblade 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs independent reliable sources for claims of record sales, or other independent reliable proof of notability. Edison 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless assertions of notability can be verified independently. 69.140.173.15 21:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete List of Harry Potter Books
[edit]

The Complete List of Harry Potter Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unneeded, unnecessary and entirely incomplete page created by a new user, badly written/incoherent anyway. Plenty of Harry Potter articles already available. SynergyBlades 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Quickly Dave 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Reaves 13:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that's wht categories are for. --pgk 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Folantin 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Delete per nom. - Mig ^(Talk) 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. --Ideogram 15:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it would duplicate Template:Harrypotter and most of the articles linked from it. The article also contains at least three inaccuracies in its single paragraph. --Metropolitan90 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rubbish, pure and simple. Moreschi 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteLook at this! It only has information (if that's what you call it) on one book. Last I read the title, it said Complete List of Harry Potter books. Bad tone. There's already articles on Harry Potter books anyway, and they are more informational thatn this. K yo cat^meow! 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Deleting it seems just fine.--SUIT 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written. Sr13 07:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Useless as written. TheRealFennShysa 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a simple redirect to Harry Potter? Markovich292 05:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone would search for it. AgentPeppermint 02:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and possibly merge to streetlight. Deleted since there is very little information or content in the article other than the link to the Image:UrbisZX1a.jpg. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urbis ZX1
[edit]

Urbis ZX1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a model of streetlight. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -- T H L^CCD 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in it's current form, per nom. It's a street light, we don't need articles on every model of street light, just like we don't have articles on every model of toaster, kettle, tv etc. etc. --pgk 13:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Reaves 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and pgk. I wonder if ElecoSlim should go with it. Metros232 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seeing as the consensus is to delete, maybe I should just transwiki them to my wiki on road-related stuff. Anyone agree with this idea?? --SunStar Net 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had all my streetlighting stub articles deleted under CSD G7, db-author, at my request. Apologies for creating this. My mistake. --SunStar Net 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Street light. I'm no expert but I believe this model may be notable as it's been developed to combat light pollution. I have no idea how to prove this though, sorry. Mallanox 20:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website http://streetlights2.tripod.com/id82.html asserts that the model in question was adapted to combat light pollution through addition of a flat rather than refractive lens. This is beginning to look to me like it's "not just another type of street lamp". Anyone have any thoughts? Mallanox 00:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Street light per Mallanox. --Oakshade 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and pgk. I think, however, if Mallanox's comment that it may be notable as an effort to combat light pollution were cited by a verifiable, reliable source, then it could be mentioned (not merged, but redirected) to street light. --Iamunknown 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the author requests deletion, then delete it, but maybe we should have an article about the manufacturer instead? 38.100.34.2 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree there should be an article about the Urbis company. Then that page could also incorperate a section on all of the models the company produces including the ZX-1. I would be happy to do this, but I'd like someone to agree with me first. User:Tom walker 17:32 GMT 27 November 2006.

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

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

The result was delete. DS 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defense
[edit]

Article admits that this is a protologism; sources do not appear reliable per WP:V. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where do you start with this. "This "encyclopedic" article has one important objective beyond defining a new term. It creates consciousness of a new and important legal strategy." delete per WP:NOR. --pgk 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Agree with user above. John Reaves 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not for defining new terms, only documenting accepted ones. Fan-1967 13:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong delete WP:ASR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, the fact that the article is terrible... -- Kicking222 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge You all make valid points. However, I think letting the Chewbaca Defense page stand is incredibly bad precedent in this case. There is not much difference between the resources used to validate the Chewbaca page and my page. However, if it must be deleted, it should be incorporated into the Landis article. The most important part of the Landis case is that this is the first time this legal strategy has ever been tried — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morscs5 (talk • contribs)

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed discussion, NawlinWiki's attorney would certainly want you to believe that this article is a protologism. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! ........ Delete. --- RockMFR 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why you decided to attack my argument as nonsense. The sources cited in support of the Chewbacca Defense are just a large number of blogs. If you can distinguish the Chewbacca sources then please do.Morscs5 15:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, this article has not provided enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable factfinder that it is notable, as required by Federal Rules of Evidence 104(b). I move to delete.-- danntm ^T _C 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pgk. Sr13 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unimaginably strong delete per the article itself, which states: "This "encyclopedic" article has one important objective beyond defining a new term. It creates consciousness of a new and important legal strategy." I swear I am not making this up, look for yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is struck totally speechless, then votes DELETE - I .. I ... I don't know what to say. It fails WP:OR, and WP:RS, and .. nevermind. Just .. delete it. Quickly. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per my original tag -- WP:OR --ArmadilloFromHell 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was take to RFD. Kimchi.sg 15:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William weasley
[edit]

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

Bill has not been confirmed as being short for William in canon John Reaves 13:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 13:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Steven Sing
[edit]

Minor character in Saw, does not deserve their own article. CyberGhostface 13:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough assertion of notability. Hello32020 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saw (film series). Danny Lilithborne 22:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character. No references to show this character has his own multiple reliable sources where articles and reviews were written about him as opposed to the film. Edison 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Detective Sing has been added to List of Saw Characters, so unless anyone else has any disagreements, I think the article, along with Paul Stallberg, Mark Rodriguez, Detective Tapp, Detective Kerry, and Zep Hindle can be deleted (All have been added to the page, and edited for grammer/spelling). JackOfHearts 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per other AFDs in this series. Yomangani ^talk 13:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Tapp
[edit]

Minor character in Saw who doesn't deserve his own article...also poorly written with some uncited speculations for the next film. CyberGhostface 13:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saw (film series). Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character. No references to show this character has his own multiple reliable sources where articles and reviews were written about him as opposed to the film.Edison 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tapp has been added to List of Saw Characters, so unless anyone else has any disagreements, I think the article, along with Paul Stallberg, Mark Rodriguez, Detective Kerry, Detective Steven Sing, and Zep Hindle can be deleted (All have been added to the page, and edited for grammer/spelling). JackOfHearts 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zep Hindle
[edit]

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

Poorly written article on a minor character from Saw who doesn't deserve their own article. CyberGhostface 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)\ EDIT If this article were to be seriously improved, I might take away my request for deletion, although I still believe that Zepp isn't deserving of his own article.--CyberGhostface 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saw (film series). Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character. No references to show this character has his own multiple reliable sources where articles and reviews were written about his as opposed to the film.Edison 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Zep is one of the more significant characters in the film, maybe the article could be improved. Are there articles for the other characters in the film? The.griffter 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, there are articles for other characters in the films, most notably Jigsaw Killer and Amanda Young, but I feel that we don't need articles for every seperate character in the film series. The protagonists of the films, yes, but supporting characters should go into List of Saw Characters.--CyberGhostface 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zep has been added to List of Saw Characters, so unless anyone else has any disagreements, I think the article, along with Paul Stallberg, Mark Rodriguez, Detective Tapp, Detective Steven Sing, and Detective Kerry can be deleted (All have been added to the page, and edited for grammer/spelling). JackOfHearts 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really do not think it matters if all the characters in the Saw series were to have articles, just as long as they're well written and not copied.User:PapaZeppxxx 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certain characters aren't notable enough to feature their own articles here. Jigsaw, Amanda and the protagonists of the films obviously deserve an article but supporting characters to minor victims don't.--CyberGhostface 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Saw Characters per WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia. -- Satori Son 06:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. 69.140.173.15 20:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Yomangani. Whisp e ring 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Apart
[edit]

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

Delete, self released album from Tim Brickley, see his AFD page for reasons.Xpendersx 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability cited. Edison 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest of the Strong Deletes because the article has apparently been deleted already. --Wizardman 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Yomangani . Whisp e ring 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything That Ever Was
[edit]

Everything That Ever Was (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, self released album by Tim Brickley, see his afd page.Xpendersx 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this album is notable enough for an article. Edison 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Parking Web Comic
[edit]

No Parking Web Comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Total lack of claims to notability. No sources external of the webcomic author. Geni 14:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Mig ^(Talk) 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was Move to main article in comment brackets, then delete. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reverting myself after looking through this a bit more. 1. I agree with the majority sentiment that the idea doesn't sound workable, as Nuttah68 points out, the risk that main article and summary diverge is too big. 2. Both the idea and the deletion should be discussed in a different forum. I don't see why this, if workable, should be restricted to labor-related articles, and, if it is not considered workable, why labor-related articles should be an exception. So while I note that while the idea did not find supporters here I do not consider AfD the right spot to discuss this. Consider WP:RFC or WP:VP instead. No action. ~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary
[edit]

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A summary of information contained at International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Article title means no one would reach this page so redirect pointless Nuttah68 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might have been merged into the lead of the parent article, but the info is apparently outdated, as the organisation appears to have been dissolved as per the parent article. Sandstein 14:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or preserve at Talk:International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is actually part of an idea being developed at WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation. It's an attempt to set up a standard/easy way to translate articles to other wikis. We haven't gotten very far yet, but have a look (your imput would be appreciated). Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sorry, as far as I can see the idea is flawed and I don't see how this cannot be contained in the main article as the opening paragraph. As already pointed out, the split out article has already diverged and no longer reflects the main article. Nuttah68 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article. 38.100.34.2 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article. --Orange Mike 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , outdated. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants Family Trees
[edit]

Unsourced (WP:NOR, WP:V). Also, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, namely fictional family trees of cartoon characters. Sandstein 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a plot summary. Interrobamf 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this could be of interest even to most fans of the show. Demiurge 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. Hello32020 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable OR. I doubt a family tree ever was presented on the show, and if it did it would probably say something more illuminating than that Squidward's parents are "Mr. and Mrs. Tentacles." SliceNYC 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft MrBungle79 (16:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Apparently most of these characters' ancestors are not known or mentioned on the show. If individual ancestors have been identified but not the generations in between, those individual ancestors can be mentioned on the main character's page in prose form rather than as part of a mostly incomplete family tree. --Metropolitan90 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Truly unnecessary--SUIT 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, that's sorta... sad. Violates OR and WP:NOT. So very crufty. --The Way 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of CSI: Korean episodes
[edit]

List of CSI: Korean episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a list of CSI Episodes in the order that they were broadcast by one South Korean network. It adds no encyclopedic information, and is about one step up from a TV broadcast schedule. These are not *Korean* episodes of CSI (that would be something), they are just regular American CSI episodes broadcast by MBC. Furthermore, MBC is not even the only South Korean network to broadcast CSI, which makes this list even less relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a TV schedule. Ergo, please delete. Visviva 15:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete irrelevant information Arnoutf 18:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely, but after the AfD started this was turned into a redirect which probably should itself be deleted; I don't know if we need to take this to WP:RFD now. --Metropolitan90 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've procedurally un-redirected it, per {{afd1}}. The redirector has, shall we say, a history of this sort of thing. -- Visviva 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need to write individual broadcast lists for television series broadcast outside the original broadcast. I can't be bothered finding the associated AfDs for precedent, but I've seen the deletion of a list of "Simpsons" episodes as broadcast in Australia, and a list of "Home and Away" or "Neighbours" episodes as broadcast in the UK. -- saberwyn 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Only reason to keep is to preserve Wikipedia's international scope. 69.140.173.15 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also kill List of CSI: Miami Korea episodes while you're at it. 134.117.137.83 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Fire (comic)
[edit]

Into the Fire (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability. Publication on deviantART only, fails WP:WEB Fram 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with not even an assertion of notability, this is probably speedy-able. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree John Reaves 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability; meeting WP:WEB. Hello32020 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Akybonko This is still a work in progress and I'm still learning the ropes of using Wikipedia's code. Give me more time to work on this. Also, a comic hosted on deviantArt is no less important than one that has its own site.

Comment: The problem is not the code, the problem is the notability of the comic. A webcomic on its own wite gets usually deleted as well. What we need is major independent awards, publication on paper by a major publisher (not a vanity press or somesuch), reviews in independent, peer-reviewed magazines or journals, or other clear indications (per WP:V) that the comic is important, notable, of encyclopedic value. This does not indicate if the comic is good or bad, popular or not, but just shows the verifiable impact it has made outside of its site, fan forums, blogs, ... Fram 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Akybonko OK then, fair enough. Can I just close this page myself or what, since I'm the one who made it in the first place?

Comment: If you as the author of the article agree to deletion, then an administrator can close the discussion and/or delete the article speedily. 69.140.173.15 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator as well as article's main contributor. -- Dragonfiend 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelly Rowland Story
[edit]

The Kelly Rowland Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about an album that was supposed to be released months ago, but has been delayed, the name keeps changing and now the album is due to be released sometime next year under a name yet to be decided (see [38]. Donald Albury 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelly Rowland Story name was on a fan site for kelly. and it was found upon two other sites as well. My Story:Kelly Rowland was Actually completely trashed except for a couple of songs. And Miss Kelly Is not true. and was made up by a kelly rowland blog.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilb1293 (talk • contribs)

Delete Lets's stick to albums more notable than this one, whether or not they get released. Edison 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete items that do not exist yet. Recreate as redirect when aforementioned album is released. -- saberwyn 06:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Saberwyn, above. 69.140.173.15 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cemeteries in Wisconsin
[edit]

Cemeteries in Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT a directory. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A useful list would say when the cemetaries were established, give directions or latitude/longitude, and perhaps provide links to country historical societies or other sources for who is buried there. This is just a bunch of random cemetary names. I also note it is incomplete.Edison 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article contains some useful information, and if it were un-stub-ified, it would no longer violate WP:NOT a directory. However, I am not clear as to why the article exists at all. 69.140.173.15 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Dream Theater album
[edit]

Untitled Dream Theater album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Prod text was : "WP:NOT for crystal balling. Add sourced info to the main Dream Theater article, and wait at least until the definitive title is known before creating an article." Article not really improved since. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Nine Inch Nails album Fram 15:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. We should wait until an official title is confirmed. Alex 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal-balling. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is almost entirely speculation at this point. -- Rynne 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Richmeister_talk 04:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermally Stimulated Current
[edit]

Thermally Stimulated Current (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judging from the formatting, the author is little interested in an encyclopedic article, and it was only created to place a promotional link in the first place. Links to the company were also placed in other articles. Copyright problem, the content was taken from a website, by its owner who wants to release it, not verified. Speedy and prod were contested for that reason. Femto 15:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widawski (talk · contribs) has already been told to stop adding links to his business on Wikipedia, and it appears he created this article as little more than a promotion write-up. -- Rynne 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as it stands is certainly a copy of another web page, which the creating editor claims to own (see the edit history). If they are willing to properly release the text, then I think it could be fashioned into a worthwhile article. If they don't release the text by the end of this discussion, it ought to go. Mr Stephen 16:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The article describing the technology was initially copy and paste from our website as new editor of this encyclopedia, but I will take the time to refashioned it in a "encyclopedic" article. The text contain the principle, use and benefit of the technology, as well as reference relevent to the content. I will add picture descriving principle of this technology as soon as I found out how I can do that!!! External link to our company manufacturing TSC analyser is not mandatory and should not be a cause of deletion. Similar external link to private company a available in many pages.

Widawski 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write This article is way too technical for the average layperson to understand. This is a general encyclopædia, not an encyclopædia of science. 69.140.173.15 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia and Chandra Costello
[edit]

Julia and Chandra Costello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable actresses who are twin sisters. Appearing in a few bit parts in a few movies. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 16:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Hello32020 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see "Juggy Girl" in WP:BIO. Caknuck 07:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a sense of déjà vu, so I looked again. The Chandra article was previously deleted in the AfD of August 19, and Julia's was deleted on August 24. The new article on Julia Costello has been prodded. Both articles created by User:FanOfWWE1, a single purpose account. Notability has not improved since the last time. Ohconfucius 07:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent proof of notability. I could not find them in the cast lists for some of the movies listed. Edison 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. 69.140.173.15 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricated Self-Esteem
[edit]

Unsourced cruft. 6 ghits for "fabricated self esteem" -wikipedia. Leibniz 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show term is widely know and used and notable. Could be O.R. and neologism. Edison 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC Morgan
[edit]

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

Cleverly disguised vanity article on a non-notable author written by a WP:SPA. No external sources or assertions of notability. Two books and a few weblogs. Fails WP:BIO. — Moondyne 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 10:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Arnoutf 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with best wishes for Ms. Morgan's future notability. -- Shunpiker 06:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent evidence of notability. The article says her work appears "in several carnations," but at[39] they look to me more like roses. Edison 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is not written by the subject, then privacy concerns are raised; not everybody wants to be on Wikipedia. If the article is written by her, then let's expand it by use of independently verifiable source material. 69.140.173.15 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trabant jokes
[edit]

List of Trabant jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT a list of jokes. Deprodded by anon. eaolson 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly strong delete per nom. -- Kicking222 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even funny in English. Sandstein 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Kicking222. And ship some comedians to Eastern Europe before it's too late. --Aaron 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh dear. Even if I didn't agree with the nom in re: WP:NOT, jokes do not translate well, therefore its pointless to have jokes from other cultures on the en.wikipedia Dina 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOT, ... Gnangarra 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why am I hearing David Hasselhoff singing U2's One in my head as I type this? Caknuck 07:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The jokes are slightly funny as is, but they get funnier if you use Babelfish [40] to translate them to a random language and back. Still not encyclopedic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge with List of Skoda jokes. ;-) Ohconfucius 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep: never heard of Trabant until now. 69.140.173.15 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Babble
[edit]

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

I do not know whether this could be speedied or PRODed, but to be safe I brought it here. This page is really nonsense, and contains needless profanity.><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might make it as Patent Nonsense Of the Second Kind: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. I'd be inclined to tag it as {{db-a1}} though: very short articles providing little or no context . Either way, deletion seems kindest. Tonywalton | Talk 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's something made up in school one day. -- Mikeblas 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for attack page. Tagged as such. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Chat Aqua
[edit]

X-Chat Aqua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable open source project. Web search gives about 12,000 hits [41] and I haven't found a single one that offers third-party media coverage. Not an innovative or trend-setting product. Mikeblas 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Just as an indicator of notability, Colloquy has a score of 595 on iUseThis, whereas X-Chat Aqua has a score of 106. Nevertheless, we only really have WP:SOFTWARE to work off of, despite it being only proposed at the moment, and it doesn't meet any of the subpoints listed there. Then again, most open source software won't even if it's a moderately popular app for an OS. For now, let's just merge it into X-Chat and split it off later if it deserves its own article (which it really doesn't at the moment). --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesnt meet the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE, in that Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself 2/3 ext. links are to Sourceforge.net pages its developer, the third link is a download site that carries free software. As X-Chat Aqua is an IRC client for Mac OS X. I would have expected a specialist Mac publication to have reviewed the software. Alternative maybe a merge to Mac OS X which currently doesnt even link to this article. Gnangarra 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think merging into Mac OS X would be the correct move. X-Chat would be the most understandable target as this app is pretty much a branch of it. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party coverage. Recury 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gnangarra Sandstein 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Brad Beattie that whatever is done, should not merge with Mac OS X. 69.140.173.15 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Inclusion of other articles is not a reason to keep; Mr. Unicorn has to stand or fall on his own merits, which appear to be lacking. Enjoyment of the cartoon argues for Youtube keeping, not Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn
[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn

Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn By Jason Steele

Charlie the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Flash cartoon. Lots of Google hits due to common terms, but nearly all are blogs or Newgrounds-type links. No major citations in first 100 results or so. Article also appears to be part of a concerned effort to get anything connected with Robert Benfer listed in Wikipedia, all of which have failed multiple AfDs. Author of cartoon is also currently up for AfD as well. Delete. MikeWazowski 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleteAuthor has completely forgot that wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a place to put articles about stupid cartoon videos on YouTubeCoaster Kid 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"stupid cartoon video"? what ever happened to neutral point of view?

Agree with the unsigned comment above me. It's not "stupid." --D -Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may be a cartoon video, but it's a notable cartoon video. On ONE of the many Charlie the Unicorn Youtube videos the video has over 1,000,000 views. This has also been posted on tons of other websites, so there's no doubt it has had at least 2,000,000 views. Pacaman! 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is not kept I think Jason Steele and Charlie the Unicorn should be merged into a new article about Film Cow. Pacaman! 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why? If they are deleted for not being notable enough for inclusion, why would the company behind them somehow become notable? An article on Film Cow would have to succeed or fail on its own merits, which right now don't look very good, after a quick Google search. MikeWazowski 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Youtube videos are deleted for not being notable enough for inclusion, why would Youtube somehow become notable? It's a popular website. Other websites like HRWiki and The Leaky Cauldron also have articles. Pacaman! 20:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. I suggest that you try to come up with at least as many references for this cartoon as can be found in The Leaky Cauldron#References. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No matter HOW many views it has, where are the multiple reliable secondary sources? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this a valuble page. i looked it up because I like Charlie the Unicorn. What would it hurt keeping it? 76.212.89.130 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Emerging meme & google search: 36k hits [42] youtube search (3 video): 2.1M views ([43] newgrounds search: 800k views [44] google video search: 290k views (3 video) [45] already spawned 20..40 parodies (I didn't count it), see youtube and google video search. Article needs cleanup. and COMMENT: We should do something about internet memes. They usually don't have much reliable secondary source / media coverage, and if they has, I highly doubt we'd find them next to the countless blogs and forums linking to the memes. Isn't it a possible way to include memes when they reach 1 or 2 million views on popular (and preferably reliable) sites like youtube, google video, newgrounds, etc? Frigo 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counting search engine hits is not research, and search engine hits are not arguments for either keeping or deleting. If there are no sources, an encyclopaedia article cannot be had. If you want to demonstrate that an encyclopaedia can be had, you must cite sources. It's that simple. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yes, there should be a standard established such as number of views to judge stuff which only appeared on the internet and was never written about in books, magazines or newspapers. But lacking a standard, I can only judge that no independent reliable and verifiable sources were cited to prove notability. I suspect that such internet notability has a short shelf-life. Edison 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a primary source. If no-one has yet documented a meme, Wikipedia is not the place to come to document it first. If people want to document memes firsthand, then they should be out there creating the very source material that you are lamenting the lack of, and publishing it in books, magazines, journals, newspapers, and the like. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for remedying that lack. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not verifiable. Recury 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, saying it's not verifiable is nonsense, this video exists. If there is something else you are referring to, you should be more specific. I'm not the biggest fan of this video (it gets annoying after the first time and only the last line is funny), but it warrants an article. Cite sources and clean up the article.Mk623SC20K 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies if you want your vote to be taken seriously, particularly WP:V. There have to be reliable sources for us to write an article from; if none exist, we can't have an article on it. "Just go to the site and look for yourself" doesn't cut it. Recury 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you cite sources, your argument does not cut the mustard. The onus is on you to demonstrate that sources exist if you want to make an argument for keeping the article. It isn't on anyone else. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't know if it's popular enough to be an internet meme (though there definitely seem to be a lot of spinoffs on Youtube). However, judging by the number of views on Youtube, Newgrounds and other websites it does seem like quite a large number of people have seen it. Does anyone know how many people have to be aware of something before it becomes notable enough for wikipedia? On another note... comment: I find MikeWazowski's suggestion that there is a Robert Benfer conspiracy afoot to be a rather serious one, and I challenge him to provide some proof of it or else strike out his words (the suggestion seems to be that the constant recreation of articles related to Robert Benfer is a sign of a concerted effort by a small group of people to get him on wikipedia, rather than an unrelated effort by many people owing to his large fanbase, which, according to WP:DP, may be a sign of the need for an article). Esn 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Obviously the thing exists, but the article has no reliable or verifiable sources or citations. TheRealFennShysa 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After viewing the video I wondered if Wikipedia had more information about the story behind it and to my delight it did! I find it a vital service for Wikipedia to bring me information on life's obscure topics Sturmovik 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote keep - if Wiki has articles on badgerbadgerbadger, Kitty Cat Dance and The Llama Song, I don't see why it shouldn't have Charlie the Unicorn. misanthrope 11:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Misanthrope. --D -Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I saw the cartoon on YouTube the other day and decided to check here to see what it was all about. I had no idea there was such a controversary about it being on Wiki. I say keep it on here. If the popularity of the toon gets bigger it's gonna wind up back here anyway. The skit is pretty funny in a mental sorta way and I find myself quoting it alot whenever I see someone named 'Charlie' or someone talking about candy. I'd like to see further information about it though. How and when the creator came up with it and such. As for those of you who don't like it on here: "Chaaaaaaaarlie.....Shun the non-believer! Shuuuuuunnnnn....." :-) DeanMachine16 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources no reviews no nothing fails WP:V. Whisp e ring 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles that have no sources/external links, some about major topics, but I don't seem them getting deleted. --D -Day ^{I'm all ears} 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article tells you things about something. Call me crazy, but isn't that what an information center like Wikipedia is for? Also, I am cool. --65.31.148.13 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. 38.100.34.2 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most notable flash animations; it deserves an article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Octeron (talk • contribs) 07:24, November 25, 2006

Strong keep Its popular and well known therefor keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.193.240 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2006

^^that guy who doesn't know how to sign his comments— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.193.240 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 November 2006
Four tildes (~) in a row. 13:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep who really cares? why does it bother you so much? i vote keep it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.234.38 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 November 2006

Strong keep again as per Misanthrope above: badgerbadger, Llama Song, hamster dances -- why not this (stupid) thing? Octopod 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)octopod[reply]

Comment this article in its 12 days of existence received a lot of attention. Frigo 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carshalton Village F.C.
[edit]

Carshalton Village F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Sunday league football team that plays in a non-notable league (the Morden and District League). Agreed policy in WP:CORP is that only teams in levels 1-10 of the English football league system are inherently notable but the league they play in isn't even part of the system, let alone in the top ten levels. Qwghlm 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. BlueValour 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:CORP. – Elisson • T • C • 18:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considered maybe it has an association to someone notiable that would warrant this article as support for that. Manager, Chairman - redlinks, formed by - not linked, none of these make it notiable. Looking at the mentioned players 6 linked to articles, Allen manager of another club, Russell dab page no footballers, mitchell dab page only one footballer deceased 1996, baker lives in Houston texas no mention of commuting to play, Easton footballer stub article but says he is playing in another league, Gordon lives in Sonoran Desert another long commute. Gnangarra 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry but non-notable, even if they do have a ground that holds nearly 2000 fans, which would seem unlikely at that level..... ChrisTheDude 08:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails established criteria by a long way. AFD template has been removed from the article, so I've reinstated it. - fchd 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and it's been removed again by a different anon IP. - fchd 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krentz and The Hand Of Shame
[edit]

Krentz and The Hand Of Shame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable flash cartoon. Google search on title brings back only 51 unique hits on 116 returns, and nearly half of those are Wiki mirrors. All others trivial references. Delete. MikeWazowski 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Leibniz 17:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not speedy. 69.140.173.15 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foley & Lardner
[edit]

Foley & Lardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: Hard to tell from the article which is all spammy now and lacks secondary sources, but it appears to be non-notable. If the spamminess is distracting, also look at this version. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article represents that this is the 22nd-largest law firm in the USA and 31st-largest in the world, with annual revenues over $600 million and almost 1,000 attorneys. This firm would appear to be able to meet WP:CORP; even if the article has problems now, they can be resolved without needing to seek deletion. --Metropolitan90 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But spamminess to the point of needing a full rewrite is now grounds for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. If there wasn't so much history to the article, I would have deleted it without thinking and been within my rights. Rewinding back to the other revision I referred to would be better but that one is still just unreferenced praise. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the content that most looked like it might be considered "spammy". --Metropolitan90 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The firm may or may not be worthy of an article, but this article isn't worthy of being kept. Fan-1967 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep worthy of an article, this can be cleaned up. Carlossuarez46 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google News Archive search shows nearly 6,700 results [46] so there are plenty of reliable sources to allow a rewrite. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep major law firm. Sofixit. - crz crztalk 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean-up. As it stands now, seems kind of stubby. 38.100.34.2 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facegary
[edit]

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

Non-notable flash cartoon. Google search on term brings back only 21 unique on 314 returns. Wikipedia entry listed before creator's own website. No assertation of notability. Delete. MikeWazowski 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a flash cartoon, 314 ghits is TERRIBLE. My username gets more than that... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wickethewok 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands Adventist Academy
[edit]

Redlands Adventist Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This stub for a non-notable private academy fails all tests of notability, including any version of WP:SCHOOL or WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 17:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Is up since June and has not included any noticeability since Arnoutf 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know anecdotal evidence isn't really helpful, but I'm originally from this area, and I've never heard of this school. Elcda0 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete School's founding in 1901 would qualify the article for retention under the "50-year standard" of criterion 2 of WP:SCHOOL. As there is no independent evidence of this fact at this point in the article or on the school's web site, and given the paucity of information, I must vote to delete. Any additional confirmatory information or evidence of notability will be added or the article or will be recreated. Alansohn 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any substantial reason to back that up? Adding exclamation points doesn't make an argument by assertion any more valid. JoshuaZ 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest this person's vote not be counted at all; if you look at his history, he posted to each school's AfD only a minute or two apart from each other - meaning he never bothered to read the article, but only went to each article posting "notable school!!!" regardless of the information presented therein. Trusilver 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone wants to merge they can, but there is not much there to be merged. Vegaswikian 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge Albatross2147 22:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep: if the article can be expanded. Right now, it's only a dictionary entry. 38.100.34.2 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No asserted notability, and age does not equal importance. This is just a directory entry. -- Kicking222 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passes WP:SCHOOL using the ridiculous 50 year rule and fails WP:SCHOOLS3. I would be open to reversing my position if the article is expanded. Trusilver 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn school. Eusebeus 11:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability or any importance, as the nominator brought up. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy bunny
[edit]

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

Delete - term is non-notable neologism, sources don't meet WP:V. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also note from looking at "What links here" that almost no articles link to this article. It appears to be used almost exclusively for personal attacks by calling a user by this term (with a link to this article) on user talk pages. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crap. But I do thank whichever editor has provided us with the weirdest dab in history: "This article is about a neopagan term. For the game involving marshmallows, see Chubby bunny." --Aaron 21:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN for above. Danny Lilithborne 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim or evidence of notability. Edison 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unconcerned either way, however I note that evidence for notability is very easy to find. Just searching the www.witchvox.com site (the leading pagan/wiccan current affairs/networking site) if find three articles about the pejorative use of this term: [47], [48], [49]. There are many more passing references to it on that site, and I'm sure there will be articles on the subject in printed pagan books and journals as well. Some of these articles also describe attempts to reclaim the term as a positive identifier, information which could make for an interesting article, and one that goes beyond mere dictionary definition. This is a very widespread term, instantly recognisable by neopagans in any English-speaking country. Merely resenting the term is not necessarily a reason for deleting the article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Fuzzypeg. Also, there are fewer links to the article now than there once were, as Ekajati has been going through the 'pedia and deleting them from articles. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fuzzypeg and Kathryn NicDhàna. If you think that the article doesn't have enough reliable sources, a better remedy is to add them. Doctor Whom 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -999 (Talk) 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use serious editing. The complaint is about lack of sources. I added some sources. It needs more. Add them. --Morningstar2651 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mischaracterize the complaint. The complaint is that the very topic is non-encyclopedic. Try putting a brief entry on Wiktionary, that's where it belongs. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that meets our content policies to Eclectic Wicca. Jkelly 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eclectic Wicca and/or Traditional Wicca, where the tem has relevance. Doe snot stand on it's own, nor does it need that many paragraphs to get across the fact that it is a term of disparagement. ob-pagan: I am an Ecelctic Wiccan but no Fluff Bunny! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 999. 38.100.34.2 00:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems strange to me, but I know it's real, having met a few people who described themselves this way. There should be enough sources. DGG 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Star (radio personality)
[edit]

Dark Star (radio personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN local radio personality. Prod removed after dispute on orignial nominators talk page. EnsRedShirt 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I don't see any mention of notability in that article, making it eligible for WP:CSD. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote but a merge or redirect to WCCO AM, the radio station in question, might be an idea, depending on the course of this AFD. -- saberwyn 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Google search on ("Dark Star" WCCO) brings up plenty of hits, with news articles from actual papers among them. Article needs to be re-written, but there's enough out there to meet notability guidelines, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google search too, but couldn't find anything that looked like a substantial press mention. A merge might work, too, and I might change my mind to "keep" if bonafide reliable source references can be produced, but even then I'd want to see a substantial rewrite to get rid of the self-promotional and "silly" language, like, "In his own opinion and agreed to by many regular listeners, Dark Star stole every moment he's been on the radio." In his own opinion, indeed. --Elonka 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elonka. I guess all the air-headed twaddle on how great this guy is does collectively represent an assertion of notability, unfortunately. A redirect would be pointless, as "Dark Star (radio personality)" is an unlikely search term. Sandstein 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the radio station he works for. Keeping under the same title risks confusion with dark star (physics). 38.100.34.2 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those suggesting merge I just pared down the article to anything that could be considered note worthy. Basically its just his name and air time, which sounds like an ad. It also has a little info about his sign off line. If merged into the 'CCO article you might as well make a grid and put the programing schedule on it.. EnsRedShirt 12:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Missouri State University. Robdurbar 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growl Student e-Radio
[edit]

Growl Student e-Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if being the first and only e-Radio in the Ozarks established notability. The author disagrees, what do you others think? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but no independent publishers of non-trivial sources think so, see Google, also checked Lexis-Nexis. Delete. Pan Dan 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - As student-run radio, it's not that different from any other student club (which we usually delete). I see no redeeming notability claims (like an unusually large/diverse audience or a cultural significance). -- Marcika 19:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Missouri State University or else delete as nn student club/radio station Bwithh 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WEB and other WP:N guidelines require multiple substantial third party coverage, which is not in evidence here. Sandstein 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Missouri State University. Vegaswikian 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Missouri State University. 38.100.34.2 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ether
[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. Google search on name brings back only 185 unique on 3260, mostly blog, forum, and YouTube links. Filmmaker's project Alert does have a new IMDB page, but Gsearch on ("Jim Ether" Alert) brings back only 100 unique on 663 hits, none major or non-trivial. Delete. MikeWazowski 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He seems notable enough. I found an independent source [50] Valoem ^talk 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your independent source is a user post on a user-posted video site. Possibly a copyright violation too Bwithh 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are thousands of people making flash videos. No indications this one's notable. Fan-1967 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only one entry on IMDB, and google searching brings back unotable results.Ryanpostlethwaite 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. IMDB entries are not that difficult to get Bwithh 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is the request for deletion considered due to the fact that the article is too elaborate for the person? If you're going to use Google hits as a reason for deletion, then make sure you remove this page: Ayman Rifai and pages like it as well. This is one of the thousands of stubbed biography pages. Only 129 unique hits! Delete! Delete! I worked on this page, so I don't know if my opinion or vote even counts. Bonusbox 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YEAH! GET ME OFFA HERE! I DON'T DO SHIT! jim ether 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — 71.162.104.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

delete as per subject's request. 38.100.34.2 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, whose research indicates a lack of verifiability. Mango juice^talk 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs (Sony film)
[edit]

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs (Sony film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article pertains to a film which is due for release (and this is imdb's best guess) in 2009. I have deleted the external links section of the article as it was totally irrelevant. The only source given is a couple of paragraphs on a page about many projects. The source doesn't support some of the assertions made about the content of the film. This seems to breach WP:V. At this stage I would question the project's notability and suggest the article is deleted until there is some verifiable information and it is at least out of development stage and in production Mallanox 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudy with a 100% chance of deletion as violating verifiability and crystal ball guidelines/policies. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOT - crystal ball, and as you say, even imdb has very little information, so there's no point in having an article on it. Jayden54 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per crystal ball. Even if its future release is certain, its notability is not. 69.140.173.15 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velicity Von
[edit]

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

Prod contested. Does not seem to meet WP:PORNBIO. One user has tried to expand the entry into something more interesting but it still includes great stuff like "well known for her big round ass and her big natural tits". Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On one hand, she was in Throat Gaggers 10 and Bubble Butt Bonanza 5. On the other, she fails all of the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Caknuck 07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. Mr Stephen 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Mr Stephen. Tabercil 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep I agree on it failing the WP:PORNBIO, however if the article was cleaned up and given more content the subject it is about is in the process of becoming as notable as her peers in the field, as one of the rising stars in the industry she has now got 51 performance credits to her name on the IAFD as opposed to the 30 mentioned in the article (which I assume is out of date due to neglect). The large majority of these have been in 2006, which puts her on par with many other performers (such as Julia Bond), as well as having over 6,000 searches per month for her name on Overture and now over 100,000 results on Google. Despite her not being as notable due to a lack of media attention and other factors, I'm voting to keep the article and allow it to be worked on (up to a WP:PORNBIO standard) and then updated as she gains more fame and notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve355 (talk • contribs) 15:04, November 24, 2006 (UTC)

Delete. 69.140.173.15 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, then keep per Steve355. bbx 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambriel
[edit]

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

This was a challenged speedy delete. It is completely non-notable and lacks context. Also, the sources could be questionable, but it also might me true. Anyway, this article should be deleted. Diez2 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is mentioned on a graphic design site [51] along with about 400 other fictional angels. Any lists of 400 made up (and non notable) names do not need to be on wikipedia at all even on one page - this certainly does not need it's own page. be on the look out editors.Obina 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is an irrelevant reference - there are plenty of references that are based on a belief in the existence of this angel; the question is whether Wikipedia is the right forum to judge whether these exist (and as I say below I am not qualified to decide but am willing to bow to the views of editors who are qualified to pronounce on the existence of specific angels). TerriersFan 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whether angels are 'made up' is a concept that I am not qualified to comment on, not having ever met one. However, unless Category:Angels is to be deleted this one is perfectly verifiable, see Google hits [52]. Ambriel has plenty of references. If we are to eliminate anything not provable. e.g. God etc that's fine but if not then this one has 'multiple non-trivial mentions'. I have added some qualifying words; if these are not enough then add content to achieve NPOV rather than delete. TerriersFan 21:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a traditional theophoric name with well-documented astrological associations. It appears in books such as the Seventh Book of Moses. If there were well-defined notability guidelines for this kind of thing, it would meet them. -- Shunpiker 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have given more information than this stub (or that I teased out of google). Helpful. But since the article says little, I'd still suggest a delete or redirect until someone can provide a NPOV article with references. Perhaps a page on "angels from Seventh Book of Moses" would be better. Obina 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe websites cited are not reliable sources and actually omit some well known angels. Find better references. Edison 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether an angel is well known is POV. Please specify which ones your refer to. Indeed, please exemplify what constitutes a reliable reference on an angel since no-one knows if they exist. TerriersFan 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on why it's an issue, is this the angel that governs travel and transportation, or maybe the one that is concerned with communication and protection, or that cares about youth and encourages exploration? A lack of credible third party sources means that this article cannot be verified to be free from bias. - 152.91.9.144 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the source - Ambriel is mentioned in communication and protection and I have added it to the article. I have stubbed the article since I agree it needs expansion.
Sorry, you're wildly mis-interpreting what these policies mean... the policy on verification says quite clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What we're looking for is a reliable source that says "Here is the main view of what this thing is." That's the "undue weight" part of the bias guideline (a.k.a neutral point of view.) If there are not substantial, serious, independant sources for this we can't be sure that we're not giving too much credibility to what one fringe source says. The fortune city version is just something someone whacked on the internet, it doesn't have any provenance. - 152.91.9.144 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is in part a reply to this edit, later recanted. - 152.91.9.144 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Help needed - OK, I am not sure what is now required. If an NPOV viewpoint on angels is needed then go to Angel. If you want a source linking Ambriel with May and Gemini there are as many as you want and I have linked to some. Is the New York Daily News reliable? If so go here. TerriersFan 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per TerriersFan. --Oakshade 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. At least one of the sources cited doesn't mention this angel by name at all. 38.100.34.2 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Salden
[edit]

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

non notable people google 872hits. Adbangse 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC) — Adbangse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep I'm not sure of whether those charts mentioned count as "national music charts" for the purposes of WP:MUSIC, or if winning the Belgian Junior Eurovision pre-selection counts as "winning a major music competition", but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Please note that Google hitcounts are not a reliable indicator of notability or lack thereof. Demiurge 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this people is a JESC-only singers. as non notable.--Adbangse 19:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having won a Belgium-wide competition and seemingly placed in the top 10 in his home country, he's notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Only 256 Google hits is rather non-notable, but top selling record in a country IS notable. More deserving of an article than 99% of the garage bands and amateur musicians putting articles about themselves and their albums on Wikipedia. Edison 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (full disclosure: I created the article). I waited until I was sure he could have an article. Winning the Belgian preselection for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest which was on national television in Belgium was what put him on my radar for an article, but reaching number 1 in the Flemish Top 10 and coming in reasonably high in multiple other Belgian music charts is what makes him pass WP:MUSIC and made me decide to write the article. Google hits alone is not a good indicator of encyclopedic value. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed look into WP:MUSIC: With those chart ratings (#1) I have no doubt the gold certified record is forthcoming in weeks.(#2, crystal-ballery for now) He was also the subject of multiple news publications (#5) in for example national newspapers. He placed in a major music competition (#9). The Junior Eurovision Song Contest is televized to millions of people in multiple countries. And his chart positions cannot be possible with him getting air time on national radio (#11). By my count that's four points on which he passes WP:MUSIC. Website publications are scarce, but I used every one I could find to source the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I never "!vote" per in anything in Wikipedia, but its all covered above so, "Keep per Mr MacGyver" :) Glen 12:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not notable? I've heard his song in Australia! (just checking WP:Music) It seems to qualify under 2 criterion:

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country (Belgium)

Has won or placed in a major music competition (Belgian pre-selections of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006)

Add to this that he is only 8 years old!

RobBrisbane 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until he reaches the age of majority in Belgium. 69.140.173.15 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for this unusual requirement? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation for Lean Manufacturing
[edit]

Preparation for Lean Manufacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essay, advert, non-notable Ronz 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT am instruction manual, and an article for which this title is appropriate can be naught else. Henning Makholm 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like copyvio from [53], but the byline of that article seems to be identical to the original creator of the WP article, so probably we do have a valid GFDL grant. Not a reason to keep, of course. Henning Makholm 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible copyvio. If ownership/permission verified, then keep. 69.140.173.15 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result waskeep. JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Country Day School
[edit]

North Shore Country Day School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable "small private school", gets 384 unique Ghits. Article presents nothing that qualifies it under WP:SCHOOLS. wikipediatrix 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, school was notable during prewar progressive education movement. TIME covered its foudner's retirement, called it "one of the most famous of its kind in the U.S". --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most famous of its kind in 1954, that is. Still, that is one independent third-party source that the article lacked (and still does). Got more? wikipediatrix 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my article, I only just discovered it, and there are generally five days to discuss. Five apparently unpleasant days. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your response. wikipediatrix 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't presume to reply for you, Dhartung, but I intend to write what I think you mean. Wikipediatrix, I think Dhartung was replying to your statement, which could be read as a request directly to Dhartung, "Got more [sources]?" Thus the reply, "It's not my article." --Iamunknown 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. I felt I was being treated as the article creator and scolded for not putting something I'd just found into the article. Anyway, I had (have) the flu and probably didn't need to grouse. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the attitude about somebody improving an article. Deletionism is great. It takes just seconds to whip up an AfD that says "non-notable" and it takes just a fraction of a second to type up "delete". Then you just sit on your behind and hope no one notices that the AfD is unjustified. Then when someone actually does some productive work and adds to the article, you can slip in a snotty comment that enough has not been done to meet your standards. If only you could paid for this. Do articles or notability have an expiration date, and if so, do you have a source for this or is this another rule you just made up? Alansohn 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am inclined to delete this article. (This is a comment, not my argument for which course of action to take.) First off, it is my opinion that the burden of citing verifiable sources should be on the part of the contributor of the information to an article, in this case User:DrSatan. Five days is enough time. (Dhartung, my thoughts concerning these five days are exactly yours; very unpleasant. =)) But unless the article establishes notability with verifiable sources, I will be arguing for its deletion. --Iamunknown 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- I notified User:DrSatan that this article was for deletion. Thus far, DrSatan is the only contributor of content to this article, so I thought it appropriate to notify him. If I have done something unacceptable, please consider contacting me at my talk page. Iamunknown 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, that's a courtesy that any regular contributor will appreciate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not many schools meet my criteria for keeping, but this one does. It participated in an 8 year study to develop "progressive education" in which the curriculum is made relevant to the problems of society. What is more surprising is that this took place from 1933 through 1941. I added references. Edison 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1933 to 1941 was the height of the influence of the progressive education movement. Like 8-hour days and automatic transmissions, what once seemed new and revolutionary is now just part of the way things are. Thanks for adding to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why can't we have the dignity to wait, say 24 hours or even a few days or weeks, before we start the train wreck towards AfD, and allow an opportunity for a properly constructed article to be developed. That said, the school has played a major role in influencing education standards in its regional area, through participation in a groundbreaking experiment for alternative admission standards for admission to 200 selective colleges in the 1930's, which would qualify it under the "substantial and unique program, structure, or technique" criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. The school was founded in 1919, which qualifies under WP:SCHOOL criterion 2's 50-year standard. And the multiple mentions in major articles in The New York Times over the span of several decades would meet the "multiple non-trivial coverage" qualifications of criteria 1. As such, I believe that it is clear that the article meets and far exceeds the standards for retention of WP:SCHOOLS. Kudos to Edison for finding these sources and making the useful additions to this article. Alansohn 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy per Edison's sources, easily passes WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 10:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mentioned sources. Including them on closure of this AFD only takes slightly more time than hitting a delete button. I see no reason to delete a school whose founder was covered by Times. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a superb, nicely referenced article on a school that qualifies for inclusion per various comments above and based on the numerous essays, defunct proposals and other competing pseudo guidelines on schools at wikipedia. I don't know what motivated an AfD nomination only a few hours after the article was submitted and without any attempt at dialogue. I do know that google hits and the school's size are irrelevant and the nominator's undocumented assertion regarding "notability" has been proven false. Would suggest a withdrawal of the nomination, or a revised argument with at least a token attempt at explaining why it is "non-notable". --JJay 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shimeru and Edison. JoshuaZ 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please the article shows notability and unique google hits are meaningless Yuckfoo 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (strong keep) per all of the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:35, 22 November 2006

Keep per many of the comments already noted above. Passes both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Online Learning Institute
[edit]

Washington Online Learning Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable "online school" with no sources cited for its specific claims of accreditation and notability, therefore failing all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Week~~ Keep Pending confirmation. School's claim that it has received accreditation from the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools would make it the first online school to receive such accreditation, which would satisfy the "substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools" criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOLS, which would justify the article's retention. However, the links available to the school on the Middle States web site (Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools candidates and Middle States Commission: Washington Online Learning Institute) show only that it is a candidate and do not yet independently confirm that the claimed accreditation has been received. All Google News searches turn up press releases repeating this claim. I will research further to confirm the claim; If definitive proof is found via a source that meets WP:RS and WP:V, I will change to keep; if not, I will switch to delete. Any additional information that anyone else can turn up will help greatly in this matter. Alansohn 03:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) With the lates update from Middle States showing that the school is indeed accredited, and given that this is the first such online school to receive such accreditation, I feel that this school demonstrates fulfillment of the "substantial and unique program" clause in criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL and should be retained. I have changed my vote to Keep Alansohn 20:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Online Learning Institue ("WOLI") is indeed accredited by the prestigious Middle States Association. This information may not appear on Middle States' website because the website has not yet been updated, and for no other reason. You may confirm the fact of accreditation by contacting Middle States Association. You may speak with the head of the organization, Hank Cram, who will confirm that WOLI is accredited by MSA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koplen (talk • contribs) .

Calling somebody up is not a source, and just because there's no phone number. Any formal announcement by Middle States on their website or via a press release, or any supporting article in a publication, would go a long way to satisfying the reliable sources and verifiability requirements needed to justify this article. If the claim is true, and its supported, I think you've established notability as the first online school to receive such accreditation. P.S. Remember to put four tildes (i.e., "~~~~") after your post to insert a signature. Alansohn 06:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Henry (Hank) G. Cram, Ed.D.
Dr. Cram was appointed Executive Director of the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools (MSCSS) in July of 2005 following a long affiliation with MSA as a member of the Strategic Planning Advisory Committee, chair of both domestic and overseas evaluation teams, and representative for the Association at various conferences.
Dr. Cram has been involved in education for over 35 years. Prior to his appointment as Executive Director, Dr. Cram served as the Director of Staff Development for the New Jersey Association of School Administrators (NJASA). He has held a variety of teaching and administrative positions in New York and New Jersey including Superintendent of Schools for the Rancocas Valley Regional School District from 1988 to 2003. In addition, he has been a part-time lecturer at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education and an Instructor in the New Jersey Provisional Teacher Program at Rowan University.
Dr. Cram holds degrees from William Paterson University, Montclair State University, Fordham University and a doctorate in Educational Administration from Rutgers University. He has served as a consultant to school districts on a variety of topics and is the author of numerous works, including two books on change in public education and brain-based instructional practices.
Dr. Cram can be reached at [email protected] or 215-662-5603 x5044 / Direct Dial: 267-284-5044 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.47.226 (talk • contribs) .

Dr. Cram seems to be an excellent candidate for a Wikipedia article. I do not doubt Dr. Cram's identity, role or integrity. But we need to see a source from Middle States or an independent entity that confirms that accreditation has been granted. A check of the Middle States web site using this link still shows WOLI listed as a candidate. Please provide documentation of granting of accreditation, not further information about Middle States or its staff. Alansohn 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.css-msa.org/search.php?MODE=VIEW(NY348): MSA has today updated its website and now shows WOLI as being a member. Please check the link.

Delete. Right now the above link shows the school as MEMStip. I looked up some other schools that I know to be accredited and they all show as MEM. I would assume that MEMStip indicates the school is still in process? 38.100.34.2 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I read it, this fails even the ridiculously inclusive standard set out in WP:SCHOOL, my citation of which is not an indication that I accept its principles, but rather a gesture to show how truly non-notable this is. Eusebeus 11:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 // PGK. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyImage Batch
[edit]

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

Contested prod (because it is not a "corp"). Prod text: "Non notable software, fails WP:CORP". EasyImage batch gets 148 distinct Google hits[54], mostly from sites with free downloads. Fram 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G7, creator blanked. - crz crztalk 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Ormson
[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax; the information here is completely unverifiable. I previously speedied it, but there is a weak assertion of notability here (despite the fact that it isn't verifiable), so I'm bringing it here. Core desat 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a source ever turns up proving a real connection with Trivial pursuit then this can be rewritten in 1 min. Meanwhile delete this as likely hoax and certainly unverifiable.Obina 20:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I live in Wisconsin and this is pretty much true, but non-notable. They didn't invent the game, they didn't originate it, they only made the plastic "wheel" markers for the game. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Google hits, Larry Ormson of Elroy,WI is mostly notable for being a tax cheat and peddling quack diet remedies, (2 out of a total of 6 unique ghits for "Larry Ormson"). These two items should be included in any encyclopedic biography of Mr. Ormson. Delete Tubezone 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, let me add WP:COI as a reason to delete this article. Page blanking autovandalism and sockpuppetry should be a good reason to ban the author as well. Tubezone 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, author blanked the page. I'll take that as an indication he wants it to go away, so I took the liberty of tagging speedy as CSD G7. Tubezone 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreee to all the above, author seems to like recreating NN deleted articles, and a block should be considered. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung does not know what they are talking about NPI and Larry Ormson did and arranged 100% of all the manufactoring of Trivial Pursuit they even impoted the dice from Tiawan, Larry Ormson built the first tooling when the game was to be called Triangel Pursuit. Without the organization and gamble of building the first molds with NO ORDERS the game would not been able to launch as fast and strong as it did. Selchow and Righter did not have a lot of money to invest in this game and did not imangine it would sell 20,000,000 the first 2 years. Fortune magazine 1984 has an article on Larry Ormson and Northern Plastics role in making Trivial Pursuit a sucess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyhaskel (talk • contribs)
Larry Ormson did have Party in the Park for severl years and did much of the ground work Cornicia Press of New York to completely arrange and full fill manufactoring and orders.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.43.203 (talk • contribs)
Yes I agree selling Chitosan should be added, also the tax case is true and if someone wants to add it that is great, I served a 2 1/2 year sentence in Duluth MN Federal Prson and Florence CO, my inmate # is also available on BOP.GOV, I did only serve 16 months and all taxes have been cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.43.203 (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. I won't oppose to recreation with sourcing and avoiding copyright issues. Yanksox 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Visionary
[edit]

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

Found while patrolling for spam on #wikipedia-spam on the freenode network. Any opinions?] —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to vote keep with cleanup on this one, google search does seem to turn up secondary sources including the Montreal Mirror. Definitely needs work though. Seraphimblade 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very week KEEP - only with a huge cleanup, POV work, and secondary sources.SkierRMH 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs multiple independent sources. The only source is his record label. If there are verifiable and reliable independent sources, they belong in the article. Edison 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on how the article is written, I an't even tell if it's notable or not. Needs a COMPLETE cleanup before we decide. --Wizardman 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Despite this source, my feeling is that he isn't notable enough to be included. He might be experienced and talented, but I still have the impression that he is more or less a 'local' phenomenon. If sources can be found to prove that he has gained nationwide coverage more than just a few times, I'd reconsider. The Montreal Mirror has approx 285.000 readers (their own estimate), but for a nation with a population of more than 30 million this is rather low in my eyes. Also, I've found nothing to indicate that this paper has a particular position within the music culture in Toronto, so I'd say delete for being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: On checking the user who started the article, I discovered this[55] (see bottom of the page). This is possibly a copyvio, and the image is untagged as well. I will tag the article appropriately. Bjelleklang - talk 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete for possible copyright infringement. 38.100.34.2 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bond 23
[edit]

Bond 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no confirmed information on this film, period. Bond 22 is the next scheduled film, and information for that article is scarce as it is- Just as there is no page for the United States presidential election, 2012, it is jumping the gun to start writing about Bond 23. -- Wikipedical 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Daniel Craig is contracted for Bond 23, then it is a certain and worrents a page. 194.80.240.66 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fan, this is premature. Due to the EON production schedule, though, it is entirely likely that verifiable information will be available significantly before the release of Bond 22. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed too premature. Just the fact that Craig is contracted for three films doesn't justify a whole article. The series will probably never be retired; might as well make pages for Bond 24, 25, 26 etc. if this one is left in. --Marcg106 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball SkierRMH,02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wait until actual information about the film surfaces before creating a page. Brandon Rhea 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT - Mig ^(Talk) 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete waaay too early Ealgian 02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedical and Mig. Stormscape 02:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 07:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even there is no conformation about Daniel Craig as 007.--Sina 07:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No information available on it whatsoever, we don't even know yet if they will make a 23. Ben W Bell talk 12:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to James Bond or similar page. I just reverted a redirect on the page that someone jumped the gun on while this AfD is in progress. TheRealFennShysa 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who the hell..? This is definately jumping the gun. I don't even believe it has even been confirmed yet (or even rumored for that matter..)! And we are not having a page that simply says it's going to be a 2010 film starring Daniel Craig in it. I agree with the person above, it might be alright to mention it on the James Bond page but having a whole new article is just a waste of time.

Delete. Craig is contracted for at least three films. However, there are no other details about this film, whether it's plot or casting decisions, let alone a release date. This page can be re-created when there are verifiable sources concerning its direction. --Madchester 22:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Barcode 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on The Simpsons
[edit]

List of neologisms on The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete I'm not sure where to start with this one. It seems to be a list defined by very spotty and vague critera. The start of the article "Few of the following would qualify as neologisms from a strict lexicological perspective" - so why have neologism in the title? More than that, I see no way that it can claimed that anything but two or three of those are actually notable or used in the real world without engaging in original research. I'd also argue that it fails under WP:NOT as the vague wooly criteria means that it's pretty indiscrimate in what could be included Charlesknight 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revise On the one hand, I think it's true that lots of the article is pointless - listing Frink's phrases or Burns' mis-words does no good to anyone. On the other hand, there are a few entries that should definitely be inclued in any tome on The Simpsons, such as Cromulent and D'Oh, which have a life beyond the show (and I think are real neologism?) So I would propose that the page stands but is radically revised to include only words which meet a chosen criteria, and I think "words or phrases which are used more than once" would be suitable, and would leave only the sorts of things that people are likely to want to look up --Mortice 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the article, and the ones I think should be saved are:
Cromulent

D'Oh

Diddly (or some reference to Ned's phrasing)

Don't have a cow, man (ok not a neologism - perhaps rename the page?)

Embiggen

Homersexual

Jebus

Kwyjibo (for its interesting background)

...and then police people adding others inappropriately --Mortice 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say the criteria is pretty clear, it's a unique word or phrase used on the Simpsons television. Given the extensive cultural pervasiveness of this show, it certainly helps to have a list of words unique to it. I don't know if neologism is the right term for it, but that would be a cause to rename, not delete. FrozenPurpleCube 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simpsons has an extensive cultural pervasiveness, but ever single throw-away line or single word? pull the other one... --Charlesknight 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one? Nope, but then we don't need to keep every single one to keep this whole article. See above, for some that I would say would qualify as an article in itself, or within the episode. So, the information would be kept somewhere. So, is there anything wrong with having it here as well? No, because redundancy is part of good presentation. FrozenPurpleCube 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but shorten There are certainly a lot of highly notable neologisms created on the show, and I absolutely love the idea of this list existing. With that said, I completely agree that it's far too long and contains too many words/phrases that will never be heard again. Yet I think it would be terrible if WP lost this article altogether. -- Kicking222 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Anchoress 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and shorten as above. --Will Mak 050389 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ~~sorten~~ ~~horten~~ - D'oh SkierRMH,02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube --Arvedui 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unbelievably trivial. Not everything having to do with the Simpsons needs an article, believe it or not. Recury 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prune mercilessly, as I said on the talk page month ago. This article is in dire need of shortening. The only entries on the list should be those for which a source outside the show talking about the term can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per manticore --Isolani 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per manticore. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per manticore, I agree. --Jimmy C. 05:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mindless trivia based on mindless 'entertainment'. The Crying Orc 09:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune a LOT, and then police like mad. Natalie 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cut down per Natalie. The article should only contain notable phrases (read: with multiple substantial third party coverage, as usual). Sandstein 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prune and keep, per Night Gyr. Mostly non-notable fancruft as it is now, but there are some phrases worth saving. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I just found this article after a google search on "debigulator"

Prune and keep per everybody else. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune, as everyone else says -- but I think we could have the "major" words (i.e. the famous ones that have a life of their own outside the show, like "Yoink", "Cromulent" and "Car Hole") in one section, each with its own sub-heading, and the generic rest in a three-column table with each row containing the word, a brief definition, and the episode it was used in. Probably also change the title, since in many cases the show didn't create the word... Dave-ros 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I said before, maybe instead of keeping the lesser words in a table, have some spiel in the intro about the huge number of compound, nonsense and quasi-words the show comes up with (and list a few of them), and have the main article for the notable words. Dave-ros 11:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune. Remove what not became popular or is not important, keep the list and those important. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revise, rename and prune. Cromulent, Yoink, D'oh and Jebus are very culturaly pervasive. -Switch ^t 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and heavily prune - deleting it will only result in a huge number of broken redirects and a bunch or even-more-crufty articles appearing. I'd also suggest including a highly visible link (or recommendation of some kind) for one of the various Simpsons Wikis at places like wikia, where the crufty stuff belongs. BeefontheBone 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into The Simpsons. 38.100.34.2 01:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the point of this article is notability. Matty-chan 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a perfectly cromulent article.--Greasysteve13 10:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Arm 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Prune There are many more entries that are less important that would never get deleated. Moreover, Though it may be useless to some, may be important to someone else. For example, someone who is doing a report on the impact of Television on modern languages may use much of the information here to prove there point. There dose need to be a more established criteria though. As for sources, I would recomend that (1) The episode the word neologism was given (though in some cases it would be almost all of them) and (2) Any external source that the word was used in every-day speach.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Band is highly notable. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles
[edit]

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

NN band Frugalman 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Oh gawd. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Forand
[edit]

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

Self-proclaimed artist. Also doubt that the article was created by Dr. Dre himself. No references or externals. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obviously vanity/spam mixed with obvious hoax. wikipediatrix 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam/hoax. as per nom... SkierRMH,02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but not speedy. 69.140.173.15 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Youngamerican. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Samarasinghe
[edit]

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

This is a 13-year-old with a single book published by a subsidy publisher--not notable at all ShelfSkewed [Talk] 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G12. Page is copied off of here. --I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO appears to be WP:AUTO. Mishatx 07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalaina
[edit]

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

This is a subsidy-published novel by a 13-year old--not a notable book. ShelfSkewed [Talk] 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the prior heading, nn person. SkierRMH,02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Samarasinghe. -- Satori Son 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep temporarily until notability (or lack thereof) can be verified. 69.140.173.15 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is already verifiably absent. This is a self-published book that isn't even a month old. Amazon sales rank #1,076,366. This is an advert. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, although I'm not entirely sure I agree... Robdurbar 17:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kafenio
[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability of subject or provide documentation SteveHopson 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which would then include about every other e-zine.
Kafenio was the first e-zine about Europe

About half the travel e-zines are patterned after it

It had the highest readership of all travel zines that ever were on the net

Was recommended by Writers Digest as one of the best zines to contribute to 3 years in a row mostly due to readership and notability.

if those are not notable facts I wonder what is.
Because most of the documentation available is only on the net I decided to write an e-mail to the former publisher for information, which as far as I learned is a standard way of research. If needed I can produce these e-mails.
The question I have is if this is really about Kafenio, or, if Kafenio is removed, SteveHopson is right about the lack of notability of Roberta Beach Jacobson below.
Rough 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported assertions of "notable facts" aren't what are needed. What are needed are cited sources to demonstrate that this subject satisfies the WP:WEB criteria. If your only sources are direct interviews of the former publisher, then you have performed original research, which is forbidden here. It's a standard way to research things, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish the results. The places to publish the results of your primary research are books, journal articles, magazine features, your own web site, and the like. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary source. Uncle G 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, took out all that came only from Alf Meier, rest can be found on the net. Rough 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now stubbed to what can be proven on the web, but as most of the pages it refers to have not been updated in years (some of them in four years), which means that they will be of the web soon and we are back were we started this morning. 85.74.99.74 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep just found this article googling for material on kafenio. it may not look important 4 years off, but in its day it had a big readership. for me much more important: it gave many young writers a chance to get published because alf did all he could to recommend us to other publishers. 198.172.203.235 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep: if sources for the assertions that "Kafenio was the first e-zine about Europe" and "It had the highest readership of all travel zines that ever were on the net" (above) are cited. 69.140.173.15 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reason explained above Rough 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I still miss it 207.195.254.11 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kafenio was a pioneer e-zine project, primarily due to design and fomat (in the old days of dial-up). To its credit, it had an ISSN and editors paid writers (on acceptance), a rarity in those years. This entry should remain. In no way can the Kafenio entry be seen as promotional in nature, since it has ceased publication.Youtrue 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jota (Freemasonry)
[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; tagged with speedy for CSD:G1, patent nonsense, which it clearly isn't. Author posted that it is meant as serious article, and there are sources listed. Talk page lists notability and sourcing concerns. No recommendation. MCB 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Not verifiable. The only source for this notion seems to be Jordon Maxwell, who does not appear to be notable himself. Google turns up nothing worth speaking of. If this were legit, obsessed Star Wars fans would be all over it. -- Shunpiker 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would expect much more about it if it truly were real. Hoax. SkierRMH,02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Shunpiker. Don't think it is a hoax, but it is a perfect example of Fringe. Blueboar 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sourced and a fringe theory, if not hoax. Chtirrell 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN fringe theory, inadequatly sourced (almost said 'barely sourced'), google turns up naught neither on the theory nor it's originator of any value. WegianWarrior 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What utter nonsense. The Crying Orc 09:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: keep if verifiable, else delete. 69.140.173.15 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mind matrix 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey McGuigan
[edit]

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

Non-notable soap opera character. In-universe style breaks Wikipedia style guide. Demiurge 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable patent nonsense bio. Danny Lilithborne 22:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as above. SkierRMH,02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Beach Jacobson
[edit]

Roberta Beach Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not assert or document notability of subject sufficient to meet test of WP:Bio SteveHopson 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is not yet finished, additionally I am working on a list of about 30 books she either edited or collaborated on, some of them featured in Articles with her name in Wiklipedia. It will take a little longer to get all ISBN numbers together. rough 21:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now). Generally, giving an article less than four hours (especially when it is obviously being worked on) before nominating it for deletion is bad form. Caknuck 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Caknuck: Please check the logs before concluding 'bad form.' The article was actually created on Nov 12 and Speedily Deleted on that day. My decision to nominate for deletion was to give the article the benefit of a longer discussion period. The article was also not 'obviously being worked on' as the only changes since inception were minor in nature. SteveHopson 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appeared to be a bad faith nom b/c it was you who speedied the first instance of the article, and then AfD'ed it right after it was recreated. (The logs don't reflect Rough's request.) I was concerned that your quick trigger on the AfD, along with your nomination of another one of Rough's articles (Kafenio) was verging on "beating up the new editor". If I got the wrong impression, then I apologize. Caknuck 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for deletion because I did not think the subject is notable. Because the article is a recreation of a previously deleted one, it was eligible for Speedy Delete, but I submitted for AfD to give it the benefit a full discussion. I resent your accusation and the facts that your comments make this a personal discussion, rather than a discussion of the merits of the article. Yes, Caknuck, you got it wrong and owe me an apology. SteveHopson 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to SteveHobson: The version of Nov 12 was speedily deleted, and I asked for deletion because I could not produce more than a stub, which-as I learned is uncool around here (Then again, I think it was the Nov 13, on the 12 I was travelling)The new version was exactly 4 hours old when the deletion note flashed. Rough 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many articles in Wikipedia that are even stubbier than this one. 69.140.173.15 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I am not finished I think the article shows that the subject IS notable. Rough 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Batten
[edit]

~~Abstain as nominator, for now~~ This article appears to have been created to give a place to put contested material that the community is not allowing at the Romano Prodi article. I think the question needs to be raised here: Is a Member of the European Parliament automatically notable? (The EP has a pretty low profile, doesn't really do much, so I'm yet to be convinced on that point.) If not, is Batten notable on his own, either for these allegations that haven't gotten much traction, or for some other reason? --Trovatore 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually I was wrong about the creation of the article; it was created back in '04 and the Prodi stuff wasn't added until April of this year. I think the questions still deserve discussion. --Trovatore 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, WP:BIO says "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." I have no real opinion about the European Parliment's status, but it is a international legislative body, so I think Members pass. Dina 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sounds reasonable --Trovatore 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:BIO. Google News Archive shows 53 stories on him so verifiable. [56]. Capitalistroadster 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elected member of the European Parliament. Catchpole 08:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this MEP. Punkmorten 09:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MEP Nil Einne 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fair enough --Trovatore 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MEPs are notable for being MEPs.--Grahamec 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important part the story in Russian poisoning case 194.83.141.207 13:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article only read "Gerard Batten is a member of European Parliament" (and provided that was true), I'd still say keep. --Oakshade 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current European-level parliamentarians cannot evade being notable and their entries encyclopedic. I am going to remove the AfD: there is clear consensus (both by convention and as evidenced here) and it is unlikely to change without an overall policy change. – Kaihsu 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can't remove the notice without closing the AfD. I wouldn't object to an early close with a result of keep, but formally speaking the AfD has not been closed, so I restored the notice. --Trovatore 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment it seems that a lot of people misunderstand the AfD notice at the top of the article; Kaishu mentioned "removing the AfD", but in fact all he did was remove the notice telling people about the AfD and where to find it. --Trovatore 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am formally closing this debate. The consensus is "speedy keep". – Kaihsu 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Rutherford
[edit]

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

Deletion nomination Family tree/memorial article for encyclopedically non-notable Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander (equivalent to rank of Major in the Army) with WP:V problems also. DC (this is the UK navy award, no the US army award) honouree from WWII (over 5,000 (first time bar (i.e. second, third or more time)) awarded in WWII[57]) and Korean War(can't find stats for this). Having trouble verifying career - no relevant non-wiki/wikimirror google hits [58][59] apart from family tree site of article creator, User:Kittybrewster; although DSCs are confirmed via the London Gazette [60]. Bwithh 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. He is notable for reasons not yet uploaded. - 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, the article's been around since July though. Please provide further context now then Bwithh 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Delete. No assertions of notability that would meet the criteria of WP:BIO. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources as required by WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference provided. Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy event. More noteworthy than Pokemon characters. - Kittybrewster 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have rechecked the article and its sources, and my assessment stands. No verifiable evidence of renown or notoriety. And the "noteworthiness" of Pokemon characters does not seem relevant to this discussion. -- Satori Son 15:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the only notable thing about him the manner of his death? 69.140.173.15 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dramatic "spree killer" scenario was only added by the article creator after the article (which has been around since July) was nominated for deletion. Such a large claim needs better referencing before we consider its claim of encyclopedic notability. At the moment, unable to verify this. Bwithh 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn nomination. Sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State Route 60
[edit]

Ohio State Route 60 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~~I don't believe that state highways are automatically notable, and this one is definitely on the low end of notability. Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yes, they are automatically notable, per WP:AFDP. All other Ohio State Highways have articles. Speedy keep Tubezone 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how I missed that. Now will people stop declaring precedent/dislike of the nominator/"no valid reason for deletion" speedy keep criteria? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no socks please. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Business Review
[edit]

Paris Business Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(While this is the second nom for an article under this title, it's the first nom for an article on this exact subject; the former article was only tangentially related to this one, apparently.) Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a slip of the tongue by Bill O'Reilly during one interview segment two and a half years ago is somehow worthy of a Wikipedia article, unless you were just using it as an attack article, that is. Delete as total WP:N failure that exists only to disparage its subject. Aaron 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. People who are curious about the subject and whether or not it exists could very well look to Wikipedia. The article could be improved in terms of reducing POV, but it is informative. I'd be OK with merging it with Bill O'Reilly controversies as well, but it's certainly not the least notable independent article on the site. There is a degree of Internet popularity for the phrase, including parody sites. Also, the idea that it is merely a "slip of the tongue" gives O'Reilly too much credit, as he invented the publication and the things it supposedly said to support his point of view. It's not as if he slipped and said "Paris" instead of "French" but his point remained valid: his point was wrong and he cited a periodical that does not exist to bolster it. Croctotheface 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the brittlely crappy search functions for Wikipedia, I say redirect and merge to Bill O'Reilly controversies, so someone searching for this term can go directly to an explanation. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would not have any particular objection to a merge and redirect to Bill O'Reilly controversies. --Aaron 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bill O'Reilly making stuff up isn't even news. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Invented by Bill O'Reilly, only ever used by Bill O'Reilly, a term with absolutely no currency in the outside world.

Xdamr^talk 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bill O'Reilly controversies-there sure is a lot of space in wikipedia devoted to this guy. Who else can mention something that turns out not to exist and have an entire article devoted to it? Arthur Fonzarelli 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - if only to serve as an illustration of a particular interviewing tactic. 38.100.34.2 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - invented! Do you understand? It is not real. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Redirects are cheap and if someone has any objection to using them in place of these infobox stub articles please say so on my talk page. RFerreira 23:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Middle School
[edit]

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. No assertion of notability. Nothing that can't be found on the school's webpage (less, AAMOF). D enni ^talk 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only 216 unique G-hits. wikipediatrix 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SCHOOLS3 is only a proposed guideline. Trebor 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it also fails WP:SCHOOL, which is a far more restrictive set of criteria. D enni ^talk 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still only a proposed guideline though. Trebor 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a set-in-stone guideline on Schools makes no difference as far as this AfD goes. The lack of one doesn't mean we have to accept every article created about every building that ever contained a teacher. Short of specific policy, consensus and common sense must be brought to bear. wikipediatrix 22:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just wanted to clarify in case someone thought it failed an accepted notability guideline. Trebor 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question I looked at WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOL3 and it seems that WP:SCHOOL3 is the more restrictive set of criteria, not WP:SCHOOL. Any thoughts? 38.100.34.2 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to have things you couldn't find otherwise, and schools tend to put everything about themselves on their webpages. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a nn school. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While consensus is that a significant percentage of school articles on Wikipedia are notable, this article does not present any evidence of meeting WP:SCHOOL, the highest standard guideline for evaluation of school articles, and does not offer any prospect of such through its web site, Google searches and Google news archive at this point in time. Should any new information turn up, the article should be updated or recreated as appropriate. As such a minuscule number of schools meet WP:SCHOOLS3, the failure to meet that criteria seems irrelevant, nor does WP:SCHOOLS3 offer any measure of credibility as a consensus standard. Alansohn 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think either of them has anything resembling a consensus at this point. I see no evidence that WP:SCHOOLS has more of a non-majority than WP:SCHOOLS3 at this point. JoshuaZ 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no indication of notability and has WP:V issues as well. Would not object to having it turned into a redirect to the school district and leaving the history intact. JoshuaZ 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom et al. Shimeru 10:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Audiobooks 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District per WP:SCHOOLS and WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 03:35, 22 November 2006

Keep useful school article that can easily be merged per WP:LOCAL Un focused 09:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not sure how this article is useful. Second, do you want a merge or a keep? Third, fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Delete. -- Kicking222 19:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the 7-11 down the street from my house is useful, it doesn't mean it belongs here. Trusilver 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please per unfocused by merging to school district Yuckfoo 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Bergmann
[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show... guy ("Real World" isn't a game show so he's not a contestant). Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The quality of the article is terrible. But this guy is reasonably well-known from The Real World and subsequent MTV appearances. Allon Fambrizzi 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Keep A contestant that people remember easily due to his temper. The article needs work though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstxanothrxstory (talk • contribs)

Delete. If the person's notability as a character on a reality show were primarily because of his temper, this would not justify inclusion in a general encyclopædia. 69.140.173.15 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The quality of the article is very bad, but this is an actual person that has been on MTV shows. I say keep it but someone needs to clean this up big time. Anom8trw8 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Succession to the Russian Throne- Part 1
[edit]

Line of Succession to the Russian Throne- Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created by a vandal who is messing up the content of Line of succession to the Russian throne to suit his own views. Frankly put, this article is trash and all of the relevant information is covered in the proper article. Charles 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal, not all the relevant material is covered in this article- though some of my edits were kept.

Trash is rather a harsh word coming from you Charles- you haven't even done your own research. Tim Foxworth 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. This page was created solely for vandalism by User:Tfoxworth‎ so he can repeatedly redirect Line of Succession to the Russian Throne to his own fake article. wikipediatrix 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to make a redirect- I tried to creat a sub-article. Unfortunately- I did it wrong and have submitted a new article to Wikipedia for inclusion. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tim Foxworth 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you learned the code for doing a redirect without realizing what it was. Furthermore, you did it more than once, even after other editors told you to stop. wikipediatrix 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No- I didn't. Proof please. Tim Foxworth 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete and comment Obviously as the nominator, I motion for the deletion of the article. There is an associated redirect (Line of succession to the Russian Throne- Part I) that ought to be deleted as well, if an admin could get that when/if the article is deleted. Charles 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Charles above labels a contributor as "vandal" with too flimsy grounds. Actually, this article (written by the so-called "vandal" in Charles' designations) is a rather neutral piece of work, as to giving several essential alternatives. The only thing I really deplore in this article is the problematical opposition to "self-taken" titulary of Vladimirovichi branch (for NPOV reasons, we allow all pretenders to be mentioned with their title of pretension here, and that should be allowed to Vladimirovichi too). However, all that information (excluding the POV details) should be added to the already existing article Line of succession to the Russian throne (where all the relevant information is not yet covered, contrary to Charles' above-expressed opinion); however preferably through discussion at the talk page. Line of succession to the Russian Throne should be a redirect only, as there "Throne" does not need to be written with capital letter. A problem is that Charles, above, blindly reverts edits of the editor he sees as "vandal". I support deletion only because forks should be deleted. When now having an occasion to comment, I beseech Charles to use talk pages to discuss about differences, not edit summaries; I beseech Charles not to revert on sight despite of his heated feelings (and presumably blindly); and I ask Charles to refrain from name callings and other sorts of personal attacks. This AfD proposal (see the text Charles wrote above) includes clear personal attacks. Also, I request User:Wikipediatrix to check the language (s)he used above. Shilkanni 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue with you about it. The timeline of events on User:Tfoxworth‎'s contribution page speaks for itself, as do the vandalism warnings on the user's talk page. wikipediatrix 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings from Charles you mean. And as far as the 3rd warning- I never made any edits after my 24 hour block. Do try to get your facts straight. Tim Foxworth 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Skilkanni, I know you have a problem with me, however such issues are best dealt with in the manner you prescribe: Civilly, not as veiled rants. Charles 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a rant Charles. But, why do so many people have a problem with you? Tim Foxworth 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Don't worry about it Shilkanni- Charles has a problem with everyone who doesn't agree with him. He does know it all after all! Tim Foxworth 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I am not at all worrying about that. There is no such worry that Charles "knows it all" upon this matter. On the contrary. (He of course has strong opinions...) The worry is rather that he does not know enough to even recognize what is correct and what is not in this complex substance matter. After all, Charles himself wrote ten days ago: "I was wondering how much you know about the Line of succession to the Russian Throne... The article was basically a botch job of messy titles and names and loaded sentence structure. I've done a quick little fix up on it, but I do not know enough about the theoretical line of succession to verify its accuracy. If you know, would you be able to add anyone who is missing and correct the names if they are wrong? I tried to truncate the give names to what the individuals actually use but I am unfamiliar for the most part. Charles 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" (copied from John Kenney's talk page, a person who knows at least something more than Charles) Shilkanni 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I would really like to know is why Charles was allowed to do a "quick little fix up" without discussion, yet I was not. Only Charles is allowed to make edits without consulting anyone? Tim Foxworth 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously feel that you are exempt from the "advice" that you dish out to others. I do not proclaim to know everything, but I feel I know enough about a situation to find the obvious errors even when I cannot expand upon the accuracies. I also know enough that it is wrong to apply surnames to people who do not use such names and that it is vandalism when a user reverts back to those incorrect names. I also know that is incorrect to give a lower title and style to a pretender when they use no other title and style and that it is incorrect to treat such claimants assymetrically. My primary worry is that we have a relatively experienced user (you) with some valid things to say but who has no qualms about displaying an obvious grudge and we have another who has done nothing thus far but vandalise articles even as he may be contributing. Charles 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of your conjecture is POV Charles. As far as pretenders using titles they are not entitled to- I see nothing wrong with using both, as long as it explained why and sources can be found for both usages- which I did. Nice try though. Tim Foxworth 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete POV fork, and if that wasn't bad enough it's a fork of a piece of crystal-ball genealogical royaltycruft of dubious value. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your basis for this opinion whould be...? Tim Foxworth 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you have not contributed anything to this article, it might be best to keep your POV to yourself. Tim Foxworth 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Sorry? Charles 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a question? Did I ask you? Perhaps Charles you should address those things addressed to you instead. It's just good manners. Tim Foxworth 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's my opinion, and as such it has no basis other than my woolly misapprehensions regarding deletion policy and content policy. As I read them, my criticisms were of the article of which this is a POV fork. I don't see any judgement of your piece beyond the remark that it is a blatant POV fork. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but it seems only a chosen few are allowed to edit without consulting other first. When the uninformed (Charles) do so they are allowed. Why not let those who actually know a bit about the subject matter do so as well? Just my POV. And it is not a blatant POV fork- at least my work was sourced- which the current editors have cited as their own, and I doubt they have read any of the source material. Charles admitted as much "I've done a quick little fix up on it, but I do not know enough about the theoretical line of succession to verify its accuracy." Tim Foxworth 17:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has authorized Charles to edit over others. The situation is just that some people are more obstinate or more destructive or not willing/capable to analyze the actual issues on talkpages. Charles gets reverted relatively often, sooner or later, so it's not that he really has "privileges". When you look at the pertinent talk page, you see who are editors who are knowledgeable of the issue and capable of making sophisticated contributions. If someone who makes edits to the article, is absent from its talkpage, that gives rise to suspicions that such editor actually is not able to present any reasoning to those edits. Other people sometimes check (using diffs) worths of earlier edits - they tend to make corrective edits if needed. Ultimately, of non-talked edits mostly just self-evident things remain in the article, as those without supporting reasoning tend to be edited away sooner or later. Shilkanni 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article already exists which covers the exact same topic under a substantially similar name. This topic is inherently and notoriously contentious -- virtually no one is opinion-free, so consensus-building will require compromise, commitment to NPOV, and collaborative effort to make sense for the reading public out of a dauntingly complex issue. Tim Foxworth has acknowledged that some errors were made with edit tools and other editors, so it's now time to move forward with cooperative editing of Line of succession to the Russian throne. Lethiere 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that is possible? When I first started editing that article there were two persons listed- Maria and Georg. Check the history. A large part of what came after was my work- and was reverted again and again by Charles without talking to me about it. He kept changing it back to just Maria and Georg. My source material is quoted, my basic premises were built upon. Who's permission do I need to continue editing? Any why should I have to ask? Thanks Lethiere Tim Foxworth 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as original research (non-speedy). 69.140.173.15 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "original research"? All source material has been quoted-and kept in the article where this one used to be. Tim Foxworth 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant spam. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"bold for men"
[edit]

"bold for men" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputed speedy. Non-notable skin product. Less than 30 ghits, no outside product reviews.D enni ^talk 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Unambiguously qualified for db-spam. -- Shunpiker 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Shunpiker. Tagged as such. Dina 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (qualified under speedy A7 as well). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helius Project
[edit]

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

Article about NN web site that purports to allow visitors to communicate with an extraterrestrial who landed on Earth in 2003. About 130 ghits, mostly WP mirrors. Tubezone 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - appears that the base portion of this is from [61] SkierRMH,02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That link is to a mirror of an older version of the Wikipedia Hoax page. The Helius page on this site isn't a copyvio. Eron 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cleaned up the page a bit back in August, but noted at the time that it needed references. It still has none, apart from the hoax site that it describes. I don't think that either the site itself or the hoax that the site attempted to perpetrate are notable enough for a page. Eron 19:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For God's sake. Can't this be speedy deleted? The Crying Orc 09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: the article is about a hoax, but the article itself is not a hoax. Nevertheless, it's a non-notable hoax, unless we can get independent verification of the statement that "some who have 'talked' to Helius believe him to be real." 69.140.173.15 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Mitchell
[edit]

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

Non-notable infomercial personality - only 89 ghits for "Cathy Mitchell" infomercial (there are a bazillion other Cathy Mitchells in the world). D enni ^talk 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too many persons w/ this name for this one to claim notariety for an infomercial. SkierRMH,02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 200 unique GHits for "Cathy Mitchell" gemagic. Most are to ebay auctions, and there are some for other e-shopping links. No articles about her. Ohconfucius 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every successful businessperson is in the encyclopædia. 69.140.173.15 17:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete -O bli (Talk)^? 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lives (Game Innovation)
[edit]

Doesn't seem to be able to grow much farther. Yankee Rajput 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete on the grounds of being a much shorter version of Extra life, but Lives (Game Innovation) is an unlikely redirect. -O bli (Talk)^? 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks
[edit]

List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deletion nomination Gamecruft, listcruft, Wikipedia is not a video game guide as per WP:NOT. Main game article recently underwent a radical stubification to remove all game guide info as mandated by an afd. Bwithh 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I created this I did not have any intention of this being a game guide. I will modify it tomorrow. Fr ed il ^{Shadows of Darkness} 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an encyclopedic topic. Recury 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherent game guide. And sinced I wanted to keep the main GunBound article. Punkmorten 09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too gameguidey, too specific for encyclopedic purposes. Wickethewok 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge pertinent information into the main GunBound article. AFDs do not have the power to "mandate" stubification of an article. That must be determined by editors by the usual process. Andre (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say potato, I say that's what actually happened Bwithh 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only reason I created this article is because the original article was over 34 kbs long and it needed to be drastically shortened while retaining all the information. This info was in the article for months, and no one removed it. Fr ed il ^{Shadows of Darkness} 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a how-to guide. If the original article found this unacceptable then this article is just as invalid. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.34.2 (talk • contribs) 01:19 November 25, 2006

Delete, as nominator. Combination 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as unverified. I cannot ascertain that the sole provided source is itself considered reliable, i.e. creates a citation trail, and no other sources have been offered. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of spells of serpents
[edit]

Book of spells of serpents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a {{hoax}} tag on the article. I don't know if this is encyclopædic at all. I am thus nominating this article. It needs sources, etc. Hoax? Or truth? TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not sure its a hoax in the sense that someone is playing a trick on Wikipedia (still might not be true though). I found it mentioned here (not sure how that plays out as a source for an article though). All the rest for a google search are wiki-mirros. And I did a prelim search of more reputable-looking sites on "apocrypha" and could find no mention of this book. However, that doesn't mean its a hoax -- I know I have a book around here somewhere about Paul, but I doubt I'll find it. If someone with a real knowledge of the subject can provide a book cite, I'll stay with keep. If not, I think it's in violation of WP:V I posted a message on the talk page of one of the page's editors about this Afd, who according to user page studies theology. Dina 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but amend. As noted in Talk:Book of spells of serpents, there are signs that this lost book once existed and was ascribed to St. Paul. This much is all that is asserted by the first paragraph up to and including "no known text has survived". To that point, the page is not a hoax, and should be kept.

What remains in doubt is the subsequent text, the "citations needed" statements about that book's contents; if sources for these cannot be found, I think it would be better to delete them than the whole article.

I don't know whether these statements are true, but they don't seem implausible. If St. Paul actually wrote a book with that title (and the assertion that he did is an old assertion), the Ophite heresy (which is accurately described there) would have been its probable topic ("Ophite" coming from the Greek word for serpent), and Paul would have written against it.

I wish the writer(s) who posted these statements would come back and source them, just so I can read the cited texts. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:32, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Delete - Could very well be a hoax. Better to have no information than unverifiable information. Wickethewok 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Withdraw pending more info. Wickethewok 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Book of spells of serpents on that point. After discussion, Eupolis left up the "hoax" tag in regard to "the material that goes beyond the title", not in regard to the entire article. If unverifiable, only that material — not the entire article — should be withdrawn. (You wouldn't delete the entire article on George Washington because the cherry-tree story turned out to be a hoax.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:20, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Are there sources then? If the sources say its a hoax, its fine. Even the fact that its a hoax should be mentioned even someone can cite that, but right now I don't see any sources. I assume there are some? Wickethewok 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it is possibly not a hoax: after all, people are willing to believe that Paul wrote other stuff, and that the stuff attributed to him is true. People also believe in things like this and this, so why not assume that many people believe in some other apocryphal bollocks? But unlike the Nag Hammadi gospels, say, this has no external verificaton. It must go. The Crying Orc 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, we should delete all mention of lost books, this being only one of many listed there. And please note that the Gospel of Judas was a lost book, too... but just this year a translation of recovered portions was published. (The original was apparently found around 1960, and spent a couple of decades being shopped around before it found a wealthy buyer.) Come to think of it, the whole Nag Hammadi trove was "lost" until it was found. So were the locations of Troy and Knossos. Far from making these "non-notable" topics, it made them fascinating mysteries, that scholars dreamed of finding, and that made the discoverers famous. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 12:10, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Listed among apocryphal books attributed to Paul
In the 19th century Muslim anti-Biblical text The Great Debate, or Revealing the Truth (MSWord file) (HTML in Google cache):
The Books of Paul
The number of books ascribed to Paul, apart from those included in the New Testament, [emphasis added] is fifteen.
1. The Acts of Paul.
2. The Acts of Thecla.
3. The Epistle to the Laodiceans.
[...]
13. The Sermon of Paul.
14. The book of Spells of Serpents. [emphasis added]
15. The book of Acts of Peter and Paul.
Some of these texts still exist. Whether or not this particular book ever actually existed, clearly the claim that it once did is not a recent one. Accordingly, the entry is not a hoax, and the tag for deletion should be withdrawn. (Copied over from Talk:Book of spells of serpents) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:18, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Note: I refactored the heading formatting to be bold because I seem to recall that it causes problems with AfDs to have headings within discussions.

I see your point about apocryphal books. However, there are two things we have to look at here:
Time at which the (encyclopedia) article is written.

Reliability of sources.

The thing is, a copy of this book has yet to be found. For all we know, it won't. Similarly, writing about existence of the Nag Hammadi scrolls before they were found would have been a bit weird, don't you think?

So, we then have to move on to reliable sources for the existence of the book at some stage. There are none. I see links to some neo-Nazarene site, but that, in my opinion, does not equate with a scholarly work.

Incidentally, I have my (private, very slight and quiet) doubts about the authenticity of this 'Gospel of Judas'. I find the timing to be awfully odd, coïnciding with that dreadful Da Vinci Code and the surrounding mass idiocy. The woman who 'found' it (in a safety deposit box or somesuch) also seems to be of the opinion that she was somehow 'destined' (by Judas!) to do so. It has not been offered up to the scholarly community at large to study, but has rather been ratified only by a small team (who were cherry-picked for the purpose).

Moreover, even to link this 'book of serpents' to Paul is problematic. For example, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus was proven by the Renaissance philologist Isaac Casaubon to be a forgery perpetrated in the second or third century (as opposed to being of a more Mosaic epoch). Given that the article says that the mention of this 'serpent book' is on a 6th century list of heretical works, there is no proof that it was not just some cleric getting carried away in his fervour to condemn. Saying that it is mentioned in other works is worth nothing without specifying which works these actually are.

The 19th century Muslism piece is a tad more convincing, but because it is probably based on faulty documentation before it (like the 6th century list — I doubt the book got 'lost' in the 19th century) renders it equally unreliable.

So I am not saying that this should be deleted because it is a lost book. My point is that there is no reliable, verifiable way of differentiating it from a hoax (which it may or may not be — it may just be a symbol of man's ability to delude himself), and as such, it is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. The Crying Orc 12:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Given that the article says that the mention of this 'serpent book' is on a 6th century list of heretical works".... Whoa. Pause. Stop. Rewind. That's not what the article says. "[I]t appears in a 6th century list of works that were considered non-canonical", yes, but other texts have been non-canonical without being heretical. In fact, right under New_Testament_apocrypha#Lost_works, where this particular book is listed among others "mentioned in many ancient sources, but for which no known text has survived", the next section is A note about orthodoxy: "While many of the books listed here were considered heretical (especially those belonging to the gnostic tradition--as this sect was considered heretical by most Christians of the early centuries), others were not considered particularly heretical in content, but in fact were well accepted as significant spiritual works." And then Evaluation points out: "among historians of early Christianity the books are considered invaluable". I think that makes the topic notable enough for inclusion. Drop the unsourced claims, sure. Leave the stub (up to "no known text has survived"), because that much was known already. Then if the claimants ever do come back with sources, they can simply revert the deletion of their text and add citations.

"Moreover, even to link this 'book of serpents' to Paul is problematic." Problematic, yes, and that's directly addressed in Non-canonical Pauline Epistles, which (unlike Book of spells of serpents) has a "Bibliographic Resources" section for further reading. But Book of spells of serpents links to Non-canonical Pauline Epistles, and thereby to those resources. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:12, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Merge with Ophites (stripping out the unverified information), unless the bulk of the entry can be sourced. It's been established the title itself is not a hoax. Drjon 17:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once the unverified information is stripped out, there will be no mention of "Ophites" (since the discussion of the book's contents will be gone). So why merge with Ophites, rather than with Lost work, New Testament apocrypha, or Pauline epistles? Please note that deleting will not only put redlinks in those articles, but also remove this entry altogether from Category:Lost Apocrypha, reducing that category's value as a list. This would take us the opposite direction from Wikipedia policy, which has been toward the use of categories rather than "list" articles. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:57, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Challenged material commented out.
Since the citations requested on 5 November 2006 have not been provided, I am commenting out the challenged portion of the topic article (rather than simply deleting it), so that it may more easily be restored in part or in whole if and when citations are found.
Since the "hoax" tag referred only to this material, it is included in the commented-out portion and no longer shows a hoax warning at page top.
Does this also resolve the deletion issue?

If so, may we close this topic and remove the deletion tag?

If not, what else needs to be fixed? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:53, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Weak keep As long as verifiable sources can be found, then it can be kept. --SunStar Net 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete until more verifiable sources can be found. 69.140.173.15 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See "Challenged material commented out" above. The article as it now stands is cited. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 03:21, 27 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Something from a word document at "allah.com" is not a reliable source. The policy is looking for multiple independant sources to ensure freedom from bias. If those sources do not exist, then the material cannot be included in Wikipedia. - 152.91.9.144 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Irascible Professor
[edit]

The Irascible Professor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not demonstrate notability of subject. SteveHopson 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person and non notable ezine. SkierRMH,02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to assert notability. Caknuck 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most education related zines would not meet the notability criteria, but that does not mean that they are irrelevant. After four days surfing the web trying to find reference material on education zines I have found only one done entirely by professionals and paid writers: The Irascible Professor. Rough 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as future reasearch is concerned, being one of the few education related zines with an ISSN, it will probably be one of the few that can be referenced 20 years down the line, as there will be copies in the US Library of Congress. All ISSN holders have to deposit a copy of their publication at their respective National Library. Rough 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question are any of the contributors notable? 69.140.173.15 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This zine is widely read at American and Canadian universities and contibutors come from other countries as well. The editor pays for essays and has arranged for an ISSN. So the IP is professional and has a place.Youtrue 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep alive. Most educational journals are very dry reading OR are composed of teaching ideas. A centralized site for op eds in the field is rare on line.Bessielil 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Bessielil[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 M a rtinp23 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetSupport Manager
[edit]

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

WP:SOFTWARE and WP:N failed by a mile. Once contained unsourced image. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's nothing more than an advertisement for this software, and has no sources at all. Jayden54 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simple WP:SPAM advert. SkierRMH,02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this time. Consider re-adding it later if becomes notable. 69.140.173.15 17:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete M a rtinp23 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Sound Entertainment
[edit]

Ad Sound Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No indication of meeting WP:CORP. Company name gets only one non-Wikipedia Google hit in English, only 1030 in Korean; none of those hits appears to be a reliable source, or indicates where any reliable sources might be found. Visviva 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of meeting WP:CORP; no reliable sources. Hello32020 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definately does not meet WP:CORP SkierRMH,02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: If the company is non-notable in Korea, then delete. 69.140.173.15 20:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Did not even need AfD - could have been speedied as a repost. -- RHaworth 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoology
[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination by User:Dumarest. Looks like a neologism and/or dicdef. --- RockMFR 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion (result was delete): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tattoology

Delete per the earlier AFD as neologistic dicdef. Don't see that anything's changed. Fan-1967 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, dicdef. Mr Stephen 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per previous AFD. Danny Lilithborne 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per earlier AFD SkierRMH,02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD:G4. I tagged it such. Mishatx 07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Tattoo. TerriersFan 08:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of commercial airlines in India. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines in India
[edit]

List of airlines in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Already better served by Category:Airlines of India. Prod tag removed. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cats are usually better than lists. Mr Stephen 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete I think there is a room for expansion. This is going towards Categories vs Lists discussion. Categories help in finding the articles. We can never do away with having lists. Lists don't just list articles, they expand and explain them. Compare Category:Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu with List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu. If your logic is right, there will not be a featured list. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a list of articles. You may have in mind a list like List of commercial airlines in India, which certainly has merit and I wouldn't dream of supporting its deletion. Of course, if we expand this list we would then have two lists doing pretty much the same thing, which we don't need. This list has nowhere to go: keep it small and it's useless; expand it and it's redundant. Bin it. Mr Stephen 11:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote (I know....AFD is not a vote :) to Delete since List of commercial airlines in India already exists. Stephen, Thanks for the link and response. Should we redirect this instead of delete so that new articles are not created? -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ganeshk.Shyamsunder 06.44 ,20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless made more useful (like List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu). Currently, it just lists the airlines. There are no red links either, so doesn't encourage creation of new articles either. utcursch | talk 11:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this information is best served by keeping the master airline list, List of airlines, up to date. Ben W Bell talk 12:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category serves a better purpose for organising similar information than having a list. Whats the point of having a bad maintained list when a {{Airlines of India}}, other list as mentioned above and a category already exists, serving the same purpose. STTW (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Since the list is complete I don't have a problem with redirecting to the category. Would be better then deleting the article and having it recreated in the future in the same form. Vegaswikian 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct into list of airlines for consistency with treatment of other countries/regions (for example, I do not see a list of airlines in the United States in Wikipedia). 38.100.34.2 01:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.. Aksi_great (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asshat
[edit]

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

unsourced attribution of derogatory term - seems like an attack page Ronnotel 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please...LGF is no more an attack page than any other on the net. It's quite tame compared to many I've seen in the past. If anyone thinks LGF is an attack page, maybe they should check out the numerous Indymedia sites or DailyKos. Then they can get back to me... John1schn 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — John1schn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
I believe the nominator was calling the article, not Little Green Footballs, an "attack page." --Slowking Man 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. (Heh). Ronnotel 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT gdonovan````

Delete, dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing but a personal attack and a dic-def (already at Wiktionary). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'cuz I'm an asshat. Danny Lilithborne 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another slang term. Do not delete. — Brunochojnacki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If something is "just another slang term", then it likely fails WP:NEO, hence the redirect to somewhere more appropriate. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary, unless some compelling cultural significance can be established that merits an article. --Slowking Man 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef. wikipediatrix 01:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this piece of assshat - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a slang dic. ike9898

Strong Delete, per above. Naconkantari 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if anyone disagrees they're an mega-asshat. SkierRMH,02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I touch myself, I want you to touch me. Xihr 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I feel down, I want you above me. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - !vote containing a personal attack was removed. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect - has already been transwikied (18 months ago), and I don't think an encyclopedic article can really be created, but deleting will probably only lead to a definition type page being created again in the future. I don't see this as an attack page, though. Mishatx 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this stayed, would it be long before tub of goo and like crap found its way here? Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is well established that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and neologisms need sources, and this article has neither.-- danntm ^T _C 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to Wiki Dictionary and keep a link. The term (derogatory) is in fairly common use, and deletion will merely result in its recreation in a few weeks or months. I think it was invented by Rachael Lucas, but have only my memory for that citation. htom 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, common use is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Xtifr _tälk 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to discourage recreation. The article is merely a dicdef, but if deleted will most likely be recreated at some point. Movementarian (Talk) 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it's recreated, it can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Or it can be salted to prevent recreation. Xtifr _tälk 11:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not Urban dictionary. Viridae ^Talk 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it......all forms of verbage used to compliment or insult people are words in the language that we must have reference to and explanations for. Doesn't matter who's side you are on......but only an asshat would want this deleted...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:16:49 — 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
The project whose goal is to document all of the words in the language (and indeed all words in all languages) is Wiktionary. It is over there. This project is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki to Wikidictionary - I use the word myself, but it's not something that needs an article. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Park3r 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very notable term with 1,120,000 Google hits. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been in Wiktionary since 2004. Uncle G 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burn (Delete) Could be considered a personal attack to a group, derrogatory, I am a teen and never hear it, Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 3:33 pm ET NOvember 20 2006

Delete-while many of those participating in this discussion are providing a perfect illustration of this term's meaning, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dicdef, neologism, does not come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia's requirements for articles regarding neologisms. TheronJ 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef, WP:NEO drseudo (t) 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia's requirements for articles regarding neologisms Jasper23 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article could be had on Asshat, but this isn't it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment why the notice about ballot stuffing? The blog doesn't advocate any stuffing, and no stuffing has been going on. Andjam 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, low-profile neologism; not enough encyclopedic information about it to support anything beyond a dicdif. --Aquillion 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:NEO. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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