Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 24: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
bulahla
No edit summary
Line 68: Line 68:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgArchives}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgArchives}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulahla}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulahla}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Wireless}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Telco}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galbijim Wiki}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Open Source Centre}}

Revision as of 08:11, 24 July 2006

< July 23 July 25 >

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Wiki

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link besides the website itself is a forum post [1] and not only does that fail all wikipedia requirements, I think it's not even allowed to be linked (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest first week sales

It's unclear as to what the article is actually about, due partly to a bad choice in name; and only rap artists have been taken into account for the article anyway; which doesn't list its sources, if any. JD[don't talk|email] 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Morality and the Law

We have articles about books. But articles about chapters of books are inheritently not-notable (unless the book is a Koran or Bible or something like this) abakharev 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in this form: Having a discussion of one of Foucault's major talks is fine, but this really does look like a digest of the chapter, study notes. Foucault wrote a great deal, and this talk isn't really pivotal. Geogre 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom JianLi 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. (that is the book that this is a chapter of (not mentioned in nom). Frankly, no need to throw away good infomation, just put it where it belongs. says so after reading the article and finding the topic interesting —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is verifiable, well-referenced, and, with the addition of an adequate criticisms section, and other restructuring could easily be brought into compliance with the NPOV policy. Additionally, the article is notable because it demonstrates the role of Michel Foucault, Jean Danet, and Guy Hocquenghem in attempting to promote pedophilia, and relates the chapter to a pro-pedophilia petition that Michel Foucault had signed:

    The issue was brought to debate while a reform in the French Penal Code was under way in the Parliament. Many French intellectuals [1] - including Foucault, Danet and Hocquenghem - had signed a petition addressed to the Parliament in 1977 defending the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.

    The article is quite useful in understanding the "intellectual" basis upon which pro-pedophilia movements that pose a continuing danger to public safety have attempted to justify their perversions. John254 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not violate any Wikipedia policies. If a "criticisms" section is added, it must of course likewise satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. --LambiamTalk 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surprisingly deep coverage of a lesser work of a highly influential philosopher but This article is surprisingly good is hardly a good criterion for deletion. Article is long enough to justify itself. To suggest Philosophy of Michael Foucault is indiscriminate information is just plain nuts. WilyD 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD and John 254. Wikipedia is Cliffsnotes sometimes. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is encyclopedic as Foucault is a major philosopher. Article is well-referenced with no obvious fluff, and is split from parent article Michel Foucault because of size. Eagle's suggestion of merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 doesn't work because there's no article about that book at present. If one is written, then merging might be possible, though the article is maybe still too large for merging. Phr (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and hope that many similar articles are forthcoming. More important than the Dead Parrot Sketch, however much better-known that may be. Vizjim 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Foucault is significant, but this is a chapter. There should be an article on the book, perhaps, but Foucault is not at the same level as Hegel, and we haven't articles on all his works, nor on the level of Nietzsche. What is written is good, but it's far too summary, far too "remember this for the test," for my tastes. It's not actually localizing the philosophical themes. Just because Foucault is significant, that doesn't license misnamed, free floating summaries of his speeches. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there should be any limits on articles that are in the realm of academics, even if the result is a disproportionate amount of information on a second-tier philosopher (it's one of my soapboxes that I use over and over). If someone wants to write 30kb on an obscure conversation regarding a famous philosopher, that's fine with me. What harm is there in this? When we sit at our computers and wistfully imagine Wikipedia in 30 years, don't we all dream of having so much knowledge on a such an obscure yet dignified topic? AfD is for deleting articles like "List of guns in Halo 2", not anything with such intellectual merit as this.
      • And regarding the style of the article, I have some qualms about the style being a bit on the OR side ("main ideas of the text"), but this can be edited and toned down to read like any other enlightened and neutral explanation of a text. I'll probably do it myself at some point today. So, although the organization is a bit superficial and non-encyclopedic, it can be changed to fit quite well in our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is a conversation broadcast on the radio. Where is any evidence this had any sort of broad implications beyond the initial broadcast? I've heard several nationally broadcast discussions of sexuality and law on morning radio broadcasts in the U.S. Should we start articles for all of those? Best case scenario for those wishing to retain this info would be to move this to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 and expand it beyond that one chapter. As a standalone article about a radio conversation with no evidence of any broader impact or implications it doesn't pass muster in my opinion (and Wikipedia should never be "cliff notes).--Isotope23 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, the large, pile of citations in the article to other articles (in 4 languages) about that very conversation, is evidence that the conversation got far-reaching attention. Phr (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I see it is by and large trivial mention in other works, one reprint (translation) and a mention in the context of a summary of “Politics, Philosophy, Culture”... which is where this article should be moved to if it is retained. I don't see any evidence that the "conversation got far-reaching attention..."--Isotope23 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't suppose that many philosophical works recieve as much attention as, say, Oops, I Did It Again, but that certainly does not limit their notability, especially being that it is from a well-known and highly notable philosopher. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep per WilyD, Phr and John 254. Very good article, notable subject, too bad its not Pokemon or it would never have gotten this many delete votes. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An Encyclopedia should cover all unique and relevant information on every issue. This information is undoubtedly unique and Michel Foucault is a renowned philosopher. His opinions expressed in this chapter are really relevant to the debate about "abolition of age of consent laws", once he brings other point-of-views that nobody else has thought of. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
  • It doesn't matter if it's a chapter or a book or a whole collection of books. All information in Wikipedia should be subdivided into articles enough to show all different and relevant points of view. The relevance of this radio talk is evident. This should not be reduced or censored by any means, although (of course) it can be edited in other styles or lay-outs. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper, and this is not pokemon. It's smart, well-done, and encyclopedic. Themindset 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. One may not agree with Foucault, but at least one should agree that it is the right of other people to know what he said. My impression is that some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others. I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know how it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:45 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, realistically he probly lies somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche ... but he's not been buried long enough to accrete the amount of influence that either of them have - importance is a different issue. WilyD 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm, Yes, Paulo Andrade... I voted delete or move to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 "to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others". How did you ever figure out my sinister master plan? Mwa-ha-ha! (end sarcasm)... Seriously though... read WP:AGF Paulo before making wild unfounded accusations.--Isotope23 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WilyD and John254. I hope the nom isn't actually suggesting that only religous texts are worthy of thorough examination. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After looking at the talk itself, I've moved a little closer to Geogre's view that the article is mostly summary and could be made shorter, but that's just an editorial issue, the topic is still fine and deletion is not appropriate. Editorial issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, not afd. Simply moving the article is inappropriate since it's a split-out from Michel Foucault about the specific topic. Further editing at Michel Foucault might change that, but not something for afd to deal with. I'd rather leave it up to the article's regular editors who know something about the subject matter.

    I'm not worried about having an article about a chapter of a book in and of itself. We have lots of perfectly good multi-page articles (e.g. Ozymandias) about 14-line poems. Also, we can't count on the talk being online all the time (for that matter, the reader might be using an offline copy of wikipedia), so having a non-copyvio summary of the talk in the encyclopedia helps the parent article considerably. See The Saga Begins for another example. Phr (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-The article is relevant, informative, well-written, and notable. I would hate to see such good information on an oft-repressed subject deleted. -Timzor 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One last information: in Wikipedia, Foucault has articles in 35 different languages, Nietzsche has in 55 and Hegel in 41. By contrast, Durkheim has in 31 and Baudrillard in 20 languages. I believe all of them are important. Paulo Andrade 22:11, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep this verifiable and well-referenced article per WilyD and John 254. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well how about this. Glad I stumbled on this as I can now eliminate the identical text from Age of consent reform which is one of the many places where our new pal has been busy busy. So I would say Keep and tag for cleanup, primarily a severe pruning. Its notable enough for an article (partly, as mentioned above, as another demonstration of why Foucalt is now mostly ignored); it's not notable enough for an article nearly this long. And yes, WP:PAW will get to it (sigh). Not necessarily this year, though. We have many busy busy busy friends. Herostratus 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Limit the content? What purpose does that serve other than attempting to ensure some sort of notability to information ratio that cannot be attained, and is in itself a value judgment? I say the most we should trim down is to the 30kb limit. AdamBiswanger1 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because its encyclopedia, and after all it is just a radio talk rather than a large body of work. An overview, with links to the full text and related texts ought to be sufficient for researchers. But anyway that's a discussion for another day, on the article's talk page. Herostratus 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Fangames HQ

Non-notable site about fan-made games for Sonic the Hedgehog. I prod'ded this but it was removed. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ssbfalcon 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • DimensionWarped admits that this site is not discussed, just people that happen to be associated with the site. You're supposed to be the ones arguing why the article should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless to whether the site is discussed at length or not, content created with relation to the site is distributed by largely recongnized media sources. That fits the rule. If you question that reasoning against deletion, then I'll have to question your reasoning for insistance that this isn't a notable site.--DimensionWarped 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaber here, this article is still under construction and the history bit is not ready yet. So the article should stay other wise nothing. (the only thing I could do is reupload)
  • To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument. My Arguments for non deletion: As mentioned, this site has been the launchpad for various notable projects as mentioned and is one of the most active fangame communities still around, and it has gone through quite a bit. Many other communities have come and gone, such as Zelda Fangames HQ and Megaman Fangames HQ, but despite the attacks on the site and its community which even took it down from the internet for a while, and demonstrates a fangame community which thrives on just that. Again, many have tried, but they have failed many times. SFGHQ again has a decent amount of success stories, such as the above mentioned games, compared to the other fan game communities, including the much larger Mario Fangame Galaxy.

--Ssbfalcon 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shadix here, it would be nice if you guys would at least give us a chance to put our article together some. SFGHQ is rich in history and remains one of the larger franchise Fangaming sites out there. There is also quite a bit of useful information that can still be put on it. -Shadixep 05:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholly support the non-deletion of this article. As previously stated, the article is a work-in-progress and just because you, as a non-Sonic fangamer think the site is non-notable doesn't mean it actually isn't. It's THE most active Sonic fangaming site to date, the longest-running and is associated with the Mario Fangames Galaxy as well as the Sonic Stuff Research Group (when it was on Emulationzone.org) and also is rich in history. As far as non-notable goes, I think you haven't had a toe in the ocean that is fangaming and really either didn't research it at all or only had a little look at it. --Suspchaos 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It goes without saying that people involved with the site would believe that the site is rich in history. That doesn't make it notable in a general-interest sense. Claiming that those in favor of deletion "have no argument" doesn't help your case at all. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though not mentioning your case at all and just saying the site is "non-notable" doesn't give you a case to argue either. We have mentioned few of SFGHQ's history which you have obviously overlooked in your quest to see this page removed. I must also mention, according to the WP:WEB that Kinu linked to. Our content has received awards from publications including Gamespot (it's on Gamespot which is a notable achievement in itself since very few fangames developed make it onto sites such as Gamespot or 1up. --Suspchaos 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already presented a counterpoint which nullifies your argument for the deletion of the article Lilithborne. --DimensionWarped 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about it anymore. We're not going to fight a battle that we probably won't win. Just delete it. Enjoy your minor victory, Wikipedianals. --Suspchaos 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that really matters is that it meets the criteria for notability. And it meets that criteria, so I really don't see how there can be any further argument on it. Atlus meets the criteria for notability simply for articles on games they produced. The magnitude-ignoring assumption there is that if a product of notability is affiliated with a group, then that group is in itself notable. And people, this isn't a bloody vote. It's a debate on notability. Either state legitimate reasons or don't state anything at all.--DimensionWarped 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it. Everybody has their own opinions as to what and what isn't notable. And just because a few people (who interpret the rules incorrectly and to their advantage) find it useless doesn't mean it is. Perhaps you should just ignore it if it is so useless to you. It obviously isn't useless to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not notable gamecruft. ViridaeTalk 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. To 70.130.145.169 and DimensionWarped: there are guidelines on what can and cannot be included on Wikipedia, and we are following them to the letter. See WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure gamecruft, and NN --Bschott 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guys, please take a look at this essay: WP:FAN. If you really think that an article can be written on your forum that doesn't fall into fancruft as defined there, please write it and stick it up. At present, the article is little more than unencyclopedic gibberish. Vizjim 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not the article meets WP:WEB (i.e. whether or not the required notability exists out there in the real world), the notability is not currently documented in the article. If the documentation exists and can be added to the article, we can revisit. Demonstrating notability is up to the article authors, who should put necessary docs into the article itself. Other editors are not expected to go search for it. Phr (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I support not deleting this article. Like many have said the article is under construction and the site is rich in history. -W.A.C. (7/24/06)
  • Keep. It's oviously notable. Just search for it on Google! --Mark the Echidna 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that the article as of 10:11, 24 July 2006 is drastically different from the original article. If some of you are basing your arguments on the content of the current entry (which is about as unencyclopedic as I could ever imagine), consider just whether the topic alone merits an entry - regardless of whether or not its current incarnation is, as you say, fancruft. Workaphobia 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely. However I would like to remind everyone here that "Gamecruft" or "Fancruft" is not a Wikipedia guideline, and is thus never grounds for deletion. The causes for deletion are WP:NOT and WP:WEB, not "gamecruft." Dark Shikari 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leave it be. Don't you guys have other things to worry about? It's a fansite. Not a cult of any kind. What damage is this going to do Wiki? None! By the way, get yourselves educated. Furthermore, what is gamecruft? You guys never explained what the hell it is? SFGHQ is much bigger than you "deleters" think. Just do a google search. Sonic Stadium is a another big fansite. If you wish too, go to Moogle Cavern wish could be said to be the "sister" site of SFGHQ. Most, if not all the olde members of SFGHQ post there quite often.
    • "Cruft" is an old programmer/hacker term for something that is only important to a select group of people (well, actually it refers to old junk code in a program, but that's another story). So, "Gamecruft" means only gamers would be interested in this article.
      • SFGHQ isn't a cruft in the least. What part of thew word SONIC FAN don't you guys understand? SFGHQ is merely a fansite.
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you all should actually read WP:WEB and pay particular attention to section 3. I already stated that the questioned webcontent meets section 3 which means it complies with WP:WEB.
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm torn on this one. This site has been around for an eternity and has been very influential in the creation of many notable fangames, but as a website I don't believe it's notable. Only 4,690 results from Google on "SFGHQ", the common abbreviation. Even less for the full name of the website in quotations. The fact that the article itself is a stub, and a rather bad stub at that, doesn't help. Also, note that you're going to get meatpuppets lured in from this forum topic here: http://sfghqmb.com/showthread.php?t=495 -MysticEsper 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also WP:CVG#Scope_of_information for additional guidelines on how to write an article for inclusion in an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, per WP:WEB. --NeoChaosX 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meatpuppets? You know there are actual people behind this. God you guys are about as elitist as it gets. Call off the debate, just let the bums delete it.
    • Comment I'm not trying to ruin anyone's parade, but policy is policy. Meatpuppets are highly discouraged, especially in cases of AfD discussions. I merely linked the relevant topic so it would be understood that there would be a lot of meatpuppets and why. If you'd like to consider that elitist, you may go ahead. -MysticEsper 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Policy dictates that the use of such a word is ill advised. If you want to talk about what is highly discouraged, maybe you shouldn't be partaking of the discouraged yourself. I'll assure you that no one from that topic is getting involved here unless they would do so upon their own personal discretion. It isn't some board full of nothing but pitiful flunkies.--DimensionWarped 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment DimensionWarped, I have in the past been a SFGHQ member, and no offense to you or anyone else, but all forums, no matter the notability, have their fair share of "me too" bandwagon hoppers. Simply being linked from a current forum topic is going to lead to people seeing the AfD and clicking on it. I prefer all information to be put forth out in the open, so I linked the forum topic and explained the situation so everyone knows as many facts as there are to know. After all, if the site truly is notable, linking a forum topic and saying a few meatpuppets are posting won't make any difference on the consensus. I will note that I'm perfectly happy to change my vote if I see evidence to the contrary, but currently all I see is "A bunch of popular fangames got their start here", which I don't see as notable in of itself. -MysticEsper 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Watches

Non-notable company as per WP:Corp as noted by computerjoe in his 20-July prod that was inappropriately removed by article author. Valrith 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylexyinfo

Fails WP:WEB This is a fan site, not the official website for the show. No alexa rating at all. Just not notable. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I almost put it up for speedy delete when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interspecies erotica

Dicdef, nn-neologism abakharev 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable term. Never heard of it before. Not much of an article anyways. -Royalguard11Talk 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is two sentences and is unknown to people who didn't see the movie. -ScotchMB 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wow, a joke from a movie. Wow. Until someone can point to a 10 year history of the genre, it's just another case of someone seeing the movie and typing into a search box here. Geogre 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The genre (which has nothing to do with bestiality, contrary to this article) actually has a history that is at least 30 years old. We have a proper article on one aspect of it at Rishathra. Uncle G 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's the problem. In science fiction, there has always been that "Kirk kisses the alien chick" stuff, and there has always been a form of science fiction novel that takes it further, but for those bordered by the terrestrial "interspecies" means either Clan of the Cave Bear or, much more likely, bestiality. Geogre 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not entirely clear what problem you're describing. Inter-species means between species, whether one is talking about science fiction or not. Arguing that there's confusion because to some this is a straightforward synonym for bestiality (which has the logical consequence that this article should be a redirect) contradicts your argument that this isn't such a synonym but merely a once-off joke in a movie. I argue that it isn't synonymous with bestiality at all, that the content of this article is based on a joke in a movie, and that thus there's no confusion. ☺

        Further to the point about the genre: Read this. Uncle G 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "The problem" is that it is a term that means one things to science fiction fans and another thing to non-science fiction fans. To the one, it can be a genre. To the other, it's just a faux euphemism. Therefore, there's no way to keep it as a redirect to or parent of the science fiction "genre," because that term would be disturbingly inappropriate to people who think about real species. Geogre 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need for it to be the parent of anything. The parent is sex in science fiction, which can gain a breakout article on the subject of interspecies sex should it ever need to. (It doesn't seem likely right now, given that the subject has roughly 1 sentence of discussion there at the moment. ☺) Uncle G 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. [Insert joke about "interspecies glamour photography" here] Silensor 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism from a joke in Clerks II. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a repository for one-shot jokes from movies for which no one over the age of 12 is going to bother searching. --Kinu t/c 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. It does occur in Science Fiction (e.g the Ringworld series) so there could be scope for an article but it'd be easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the place to catalogue every phrase from movies. JeffMurph 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -999 (Talk) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — and I immediately thought Rishathra, also. However, this is a dictionary pseudo-definition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt also mean beastility? Wow, you learn something new from Wiki every day. I expected an indepth article about erotic relationships of intelligent species in fiction. Somewhere all the half-elves have to come from after all. (Reminds, I hope that book about that alien and that woman arrives soon, it sounded fairly interesting and slightly raunchy.) --84.184.95.77 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I learn something from Uncle G every day. It's apparent that an article at this namespace could be appropriate. However, this one certainly is not, for the reasons listed above -- no need for a page for a movie catchphrase, and no dicdefs. Delete. Jacqui★ 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit. Keep, did you guys just search for it for the sheer purpose of deleting it? There are probably some other catch phrases from movies here, so I do not know what makes this one so wrong. I do think it could be edited in light of recent arguments, though.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4 as Suisky. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suisk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 simple, pretty much word-for-word, re-creation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's So Raven: The Movie). Please make use of {{db-repost}} for this sort of thing, rather than creating a whole new AFD nomination. Uncle G 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Raven: The Movie

This was nominated for deletion before, but someone has recreated the page. It all seems to be fancruft or speculation; as was said in the first discussion, there is no evidence to suggest a That's So Raven movie being produced in the near future. LBM 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to keep, and it's not comfy. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klippan (sofa)

Non-notable IKEA product. Spam-like. Fireplace 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mind boggling that someone would create an article about a sofa. -Royalguard11Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Show some references, some mentions of the importance, some usage other than the catalog. Otherwise, voting to keep is voting against the deletion guidelines. Further "notable" isn't a justification for an article. This is one model in the IKEA catalog. While the Billy might make it (as one of their oldest units and the first to be popular, and therefore the one that made the company successful), this isn't a Billy. Geogre 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some usage other than the catalogue was in fact already in the article. It wasn't immediately obvious, I grant you. But it should be now. Uncle G 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • N.b. Uncle G and others have been rewriting and improving the article. I still can't quite change my vote, as I think 1980 doesn't really make this one of the Sofas that Made IKEA, but the article as it is now is vastly superior to the one that I and the above voted on. My vote now is a much weakened delete. Geogre 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep after the rewrites. I'm still not convinced that anything new when I went to college is a "classic," but this is a well done article now. Geogre 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a notable product. Particularly in home furnishings, an industry where trends come and go like fireflies, it's extraordinary that this continues to be popular after a quarter of a century. Definately more notable than any number of products we have articles for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan. -- Librarianofages 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both notable and comfy. george 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to be WP:OR: A more elegant solution is to feed a broom handle.... Also, being more notable than other products with articles is an argument to delete those, not keep this one. - Yomangani 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't consider one article (discounting the passing references in the other sources) to be 'multiple non-trival published works', so as far as I was concerned it was failing WP:CORP. However a little digging brings up a few articles specifically about the Klippan, and since the original research has been removed I have to change to a 'Keep'. Yomangani 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no ya don't No sofa models from Ikea, please. I think there's probably something like 25,000 Ikea products, and none of them are notable...even if I'm sittin on one now. AdamBiswanger1 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:CORP, the primary criterion for products and services is that they be the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their companies. The vast number of IKEA products will not satisfy that criterion, their only mentions being in product catalogues. However, this one does. There was a whole study published about how this specific sofa burns, for one thing. Keep. Uncle G 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the fire safety report isn't about this sofa in particular - in the report they use three custom built sofas based on the Klippan (probably because it is a common make) Yomangani 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is. It's about this very sofa with various different flame retardants applied to it. From page 12 of the source cited by the article: The IKEA sofa “Klippan” was used as the model for all three sofas. Uncle G 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The study is about fire safety regulations, not about fire safety in the Klippen model, and the sofas are based on the Klippen model rather than being the Klippen: Three different sofas were used for this study, all based on a standard, commercially available European model sold by IKEA (the “Klippan” model). This model is currently marketed with a mainly polystyrene rigid frame, but for this study a wooden frame was used because this is more representative of typical furniture on the market. I'd say this amounted to trival coverage (even if it wasn't a fire safety report). - Yomangani 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this sofa really did make it as an iconic piece of design like the Barcelona chair, then it would be a keep, but there's one newpaper article about it. A fire safety test report doesn't count, nor does a mere mention of the product in the Kuwaiti Times. At best, merge into Ikea. -- Whpq 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference to the Kuwaiti Times is to source the previously contested point that the sofa is named after the place in Sweden. Not everything has the purpose of establishing notability. Sometimes a source is being cited for the simple reason of providing a reference for something in the article that needs to be sourced. ☺ Uncle G 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. 1ne 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Verifiability/references for this topic are not a problem. Here is a BusinessWeek story on the history of the Klippan. And here is one from the Scotland Sunday Herald. I'm sure it would be possible to find quite a lot more, especially if we count interior/industrial design magazines and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the Sunday Herald article is sufficient to establish that the sofa is considered a significant piece of design. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sofa looks notabler and notabler with each of the references added, and if Lars Engman is the main designer of this sofa (and probably many other mass-produced and recognized pieces of furniture) and the current chief designer of IKEA, he should probably have an article too. I found some references to Klippan (commonly called a "classic") in a Swedish newspaper article database. I haven't looked through all of the hits, but the current head of IKEA Sweden, Jeanette Söderberg, declared Klippan to be her favorite IKEA product in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet (2005-01-22). According to an article in Aftonbladet (1998-09-13) on "why men like leather sofas", Jean-Pierre Barda, Swedish celebrity hairdresser and former member of Army of Lovers, had a Klippan in brown cowhide at home. up+land 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it passes Geogre's notability standard then it certainly passes mine ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as the conflicted nominator. Some of the sources seem to be about the Klippan qua paradigmatic IKEA product, rather than qua itself. Fireplace 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as rewritten by Uncle G and others. Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC MD

Advertisement and self promotion. Tagged with "prod" on 5/22/06; tag removed by IP user in the same region (Chicago) as the business is located. Diogenes00 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding hamster

By its own admission, this topic is obscure. Simply put: no way is "an obscure in-joke in the early years of [a] Finnish computer magazine" notable. Not in the least. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The only reason this article exists is for silly parallelism with exploding whale and exploding toad.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE

Cmon now...an exploding hamster? Get that outta here...Reppin the bay 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Obvious. Naconkantari 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGN_users

Do we really need this page? Seems like nonsense to me ScotchMB 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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

The result was delete. DS 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

schoolhandbook.blogspot.com

Removed without comment. a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB Lorty 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedID

fails WP:CORP ranks almost 3 million on Alexa; spam links to this company have been placed in other articles. Rklawton 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion. However, does everyone realize that the O.J. Simpson carchase was eleven years ago? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1990s retro movement

The retro movement described in the article appears to be purely speculative. Unlike other retro movements, this one is not widely considered to have occurred. Also, the references to events in the future are bizarre. Originalbigj 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:CITE --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I saw this page a few days ago and said to myself, "This is a horrible page. Why does it exist? I should AfD it." But, me being as ADD as I am, I forgot after about fifteen seconds. -- Kicking222 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Yeah, what is this predicting the future, "Pokemon will die in 2010"...Definitely gotta delete. Reppin the bay 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Deep thoughts, man. Let's, like, imagine that, like, people are going to be buying wide ties like the 90's nostalgia for the 70's. That would be so cool! When the 90's nostalgia (other than nostalgia for the US presidents) hits, and when it is past tense, and when it has been discussed elsewhere, it will be time. Otherwise, this is IR (idiosyncratic research). Geogre 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is this? Crystal ballzzzz. --Kinu t/c 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would think to have an article on a retro movement, that time period should be at least a decade away. Come back in 4 years. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The gold standard for nostalgia is Happy Days. This T.V. show from 1974 was a nostalgic look back to 1954. Then, in 1978, Fonzi jumped the shark but that's not my point. The point is, you have to wait 20 years to look back on a decade. I mean, if they are still selling Pokeman Cards, then it isn't nostalgia, its just a continuation of the Pokeman thing, which I don't get by the way. Take the Viet Nam war for example. They were still fighting it hot and heavy in 1973, but that doesn't mean it was a nostalgic throwback to the 1960's, it was just the war continueing on. In fact, to reminisce about the Viet Nam war we created M*A*S*H, which was purportedly set in Korea but was really about Viet Nam and you know it. george 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the line talking about 1990s Adult Contemporary music continues to be played on workplace radio stations; notably Detroit's WNIC. I think that's by force and not by fad, you don't hear alot of new Celine Dion or Kenny G stuff anymore, and most music today I wouldn't consider "office-friendly". Also, these points;
Many bands from the 1990s such as Green Day and Smashing Pumpkins continue to record music in the 2000s.
Sonic the Hedgehog is remade for modern game consoles.
Bands and video game franchises can last more than one decade? I never knew that, my mind has been blown! (faints) Nate 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrible. JeffMurph 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Try to assume the mind set of someone who would type in 1990s retro movement. They may be wondering if such a movement exists or not, that question is itself an iterestig and evolving question and should be covered in an expanded issue. There is also a theory about retro movements that they are the emotion responses of new parents to the pressures of adult life looking to reconnect with the existence of their childhood, that is retro is by its nature an effort to return to a more infantile state. Someone who was 13 years old in the mid 1990s is still a young adult and probably not yet old enough to turn conservative. A fuller discussion of if there is a 1990s retro, if one evolves (it will in about 5 years, they always do) and its history would be a breakthrough article for Wikipedia, the first time such a fine grained social event could be followed publically. Its the kind of thing Encyc Britannica could never do. Also having lived through the time I notice the kids are now waring 1987 retro, so we can see 1990s retro soon. Anyways I fail to see the damage this does if someone just edits it some.--Rhooker1236 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How on earth can you pinpoint "1987 retro"??? Are you being serious? Cultural things aren't THAT well defined that we can say "oh, that's 1973 retro" or "That's 1981 retro!". --Rehcsif 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - besides, you admit yourself that we're talking about "if one evolves". It hasn't yet, so there's no need to write about it until it has. When it does, then it's a useful topic. BigHaz 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is lame. Furby's are 8 years old. Tamagotchis are 9. These toys took a few years to dwindle away, so we're talking maybe things 5-6 years old are now "retro"?? Check back in 15 years and then we can maybe write this article. I knew a guy when I was in college in 1990 who had an Atari 2600 in his dorm, but we didn't call it the "1980's retro movement"... --Rehcsif 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: How on earth can he tell what will happen in the future? --awh (Talk) 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While I admire that this page is well defined. The 1990s just aren't retro yet. Sure there are nostalgic teens and adults from the era, but the '90s just aren't that retro yet. This article will make more since in the tweenz (2010s). By the way I am very nostalgic towards the '90s. The '90s rocked! (Tigerghost 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up To The Ground

Again, WP:NOT a Crytal Ball. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Bugs, but allw for recreation when more info is present.
  • Delete as it stands now, as unverified. Article claims "is filming" but all the cited sources just say "has been signed to appear". Need actual verification that it is filming, not six-month-old articles that say it was going to. Every source I can find is dated in March, with not an update since. Fan-1967 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no inherent value in an article about a movie with "no release date and no announced plot". If indeed more information becomes available regarding this then it can be recreated, but as of now it's just crystalballism. DrunkenSmurf 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as "empty, no content." What is there is that there is a movie, the production date nobody knows, about a thing no one has heard, that will be released nobody knows when, but here is a title. Borderline pranksterism, and we ain't aint-it-cool-news.com. Geogre 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once the movie is actually announced by IMDb or a film company, then it should be created. As of now, it's all speculation. Not a crystal ball. -Royalguard11Talk 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was lies. DS 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desinterism

Per the article, "Term desinterism was used for the first time in USSR in 1964". Only problem is, with zero GHits, it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone, at any time. Looks like Original Research and Neologism. I also can't find any references to "Golden paprika" that don't refer to a color or a spice, so total hoax is possible. Author has no other edits. -- Fan-1967 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, grave robbing would be "disinterism", although I believe the usual term is disinterment. This one just doesn't seem to mean anything. (I even tried possible Spanish variants like Desinterismo or Desinterisma because of the Latin American references in the article. No hits.) Fan-1967 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bermuda Triangle incidents

This is neither a list of incidents nor even a list of links to them. It's mostly a collection of links to various dates and various types of craft. Crabapplecove 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German exonyms for places in Latvia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus, much less a language translator. Crabapplecove 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 1ne 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs

It's a terrible article anyway, but the whole idea seems based on opinion and Original Research. What constitutes a "spoof" is often largely subjective. (What If #36, for example, is most definitely not a spoof, because there's nothing humorous or satirical about it.) Crabapplecove 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are we allowed to link to WP:NOT and say that "WP is not.." whatever we feel like, even when it's not explicitly listed on that page? Can I say that WP is not a tuna fish sandwich submerged in a bathtub full of mineral spirits? -- Plutor 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was also a poorly composed joke. I knew which explicit rule you were referring to. Apologies all around! -- Plutor 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with swipe (comics). MrDolomite is right they are not spoofs, rather they are often an homage. The list isn't necessarily Original Research because there are forum discussions that document swipes (see links at the end of the swipe page). Journeyman 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save—I think the list is notable and interesting, though perhaps homage is a better term. I don't like swipe, because that implies that it was stolen or copied out of laziness. Ragdoll 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Journeyman. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have small sub-sections for the swipe page for the covers that have been homaged/copied so many times that the amount of swiping itself is notable, as FF#1 certainly qualifies. However the article as it is isn't enough to justify its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Murphy (diver)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Meteos planets

It either needs to be completely redone or, IMHO, deleted. It's nonstop opinion throughout {"very strange", "it's great", "sounds like", etc.) and reads very much like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere else. The statistics almost certainly were, and are therefore a copyright violation. Crabapplecove 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would have tagged it with {{move to gaming wiki}} if I have seen that article lately. The information does not fit Wikipedia, the simple list of planets could go in Meteos, while all the extra information may go to a gaming wiki. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Move to gaming wiki per ReyBrujo. There is no need to delete potentially useful infomation, just put it in the right place! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article then rewrite and condense. Noting some of the wilder characteristics (such as for Gravitas or Hevendor) would be useful for the main Meteos article, but comprehensive stats are things for a gaming wiki (or Wikibooks?), especially when the game itself mentions nothing about these stats and they can only be derived experientially. --Stratadrake 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (With move to a gaming wiki if any want it) I wouldn't call using statistics a copyvio, they're simple facts that can't be written any other way. That being said... simple stats about video game levels pretty much violate NOT a game guide, as do the personal opinions and suggestions. I don't really see any need to merge - there doesn't seem to be any info that would be useful, except in a guide sort of way. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Wikibooks. I did contribute to this article, but let's be honest- it's more appropriate for a strategy guide than an encyclopedia, and a strategy guide is what Wikipedia is not. --Sonicrazy 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credit freeze

The intent of this article is to draw attention to one company, also nominated for deletion. All but one of the external links are to pages about or written by one of TrustedID's founders. Finally, this article was created on 2006-07-22 by User:Citim who also created the TrustedID article. Citim has made no contributions to WP other than creating these two entries and editing Suze Orman to add another link to TrustedID. Both articles are VSCA and should be deleted. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byrd Alzheimer's Center & Research Institute

This sounds like it was lifted from a website. First person viewpoint, some POV... TrackerTV 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Twelve

Delete non-notable, unverifiable and likely original research. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right (1976 Music Package)

If this isn't cruft I don't know what it. It is useless, unencylopedic and something nobody is likely to search for - and those are the reasons that are on the talk page@ Buckner 1986 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedias by size

Without actually providing the sizes for the reader, this is unproven Original Research. It's also just plain goofy. Crabapplecove 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as probably a redundant article MLA 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Nisbet

The page does not assert the notability of its subject and has no citations. It has only 496 google hits. It seems to be a non-notable author who wrote a few books during his life time. Cowman109Talk 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[5], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[6]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. I only found 2 ghits. One was Wikipedia. Alphachimp talk 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For a topic this old, internet hits mean nothing, you have to go for print sources. It's easy to forget but for a long time there was no such thing as an Internet, and lots of stuff from the pre-Internet world has not yet been "nettified". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairnie for a more recent example with limited Google hits, but that's now shaping up as a very good article. Note: no vote (changed below) from me re this specific article for now. Phr (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added this page. This author clearly meets the Wikipedia citerion for biographies: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". OK, he's a minor literary figure, but he was published, some of his archives are held in Cambridge University Archives, and he was reviewed in serious national newspapers ("The Onlie Begetter", TLS, 1936; "Spread no wings", Times 1937). Are we to purge Wikipedia of all minor writers and thinkers? That would remove one of its strengths - coverage of the unfashionable.Mark Nesbitt 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to shout. Google hits aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do mean something to different degrees depending on topic. It can especially useful when you're using Google Scholar and Google Books too. Bwithh 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mark Nesbitt seems to be working on his family tree, which is okay if the subjects are sufficiently encyclopedically notable minor thinkers and authors. Unfortunately I don't think this author is.
    • I found three entries in the Cambridge University library catalogue[8] (which is a legal deposit library[9], with minimal selectivity in what it archives - rather the library tries to catalogue all publications so its not a mark of distinction to be in the collection). The catalogue has a timeout feature, so direct links to searches won't work, but anyone can use the search function. I could not find "Spread no wings" in the catalogue.
    • Of the three I found - one title is a privately published book under a pseudonym, another is a book also printed under a pseudonym which had a print run of 250. The third is probably Nisbet's most notable book, The Onlie Begetter (1936), in which the author theorizes that the Mr. W.H. (the "only begetter" (i.e. patron, I assume) of the sonnets) to which an 1609 edition of Shakespeare's sonnets is dedicated is William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis, rather than William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke who was and is considered to be the most likely candidate. This theory is probably why the book received attention in the Times Literary Supplement. (But we don't know how it was received).
    • However, I can't find any relevant hits which discuss a connection between Powis and Shakespeare (searching for "William Herbert" and "Powis" and "Shakespeare" and "sonnets") in Google[10], Google Scholar[11] or Google Books[12](the national biography hit discusses William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke - the Powis mention is elsewhere on the page and is unrelated and not the right Powis anyway. and the biography dates from 1911.).There are 4 hits for "Ulric Nesbit" likely related to Shakespeare on Google Books[13]. Zero hits on Google Scholar[14].
    • In comparison, there are a substantial number of hits (658 pages on Google Books; 157 hits on Google Scholar, 765 hits on regular Google) which discuss the relationship between Shakespeare and William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke however[15] [16][17]. The wikipedia article on Mr. WH also lists 5 other persons aside from Pembroke who have been discussed as likely candidates for the mystery Mr. WH. - but does not include Powis.
    • All this leads me to believe that while Ulric Nesbit's WH theory about Powis may have made a minor splash at the time, he has had little or no lasting impact on the Shakespeare scholarship, even in his own lifetime. I think Ulric's theory should be mentioned in the Mr. WH article, but he is not notable enough of a scholar for his own article Bwithh 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough for inclusion. JeffMurph 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh Originalbigj 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mulling it over if this is the author of The Onlie Begetter (but if so, why isn't that in the article?) there's multiple hits for Ulric Nisbet on bookfinder.com. The Onlie Begetter was published by Longmans in 1936 and republished by Haskell House in 1970 and 1982; that there were enough readers to keep it marketable for that long is evidence of minor notability (unless Haskell House is a vanity press--I have a slight suspicion of that but haven't checked it out). However, there's also a 2006 print-on-demand edition which I'll guess is connected to Mark Nesbitt; if it is, then the article has a tinge of WP:SPAM to add to the WP:VAIN already evident. Phr (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haskell House seems to be a small specialist publisher dedicated to reprints of "scarce scholarly books".[18]. Now known as MSG-Haskell House[19]. Can't find website for the company Bwithh 10:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sigh, no I'm no relation to him and have no connection with him. I was a committed contributor to Wikipedia who likes to release to the public domain pieces of research that I do for other purposes, if they seem to fall within its scope...Mark Nesbitt 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Bwitth's link to MSG-Haskell which looks a legit press (at least these days). ("Scarce scholarly books" is actually what sounded to me like "vanity"). If The Onlie Begetter stayed in print for 46 years in the pre-POD era, that's enough notability for something like this. Mark, if the article stays around, it would be good if you could update it with something about the book. (added:) Also, thanks for the clarification. Phr (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the above comments. 496 google hits is fairly decent for a subject who died a decade before the internet became commercially viable. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're not parsing your google search correctly. There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[20], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[21]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfit U.S.

Non-notable bandcruft, vanity, and a great deal of patent nonsense. Crabapplecove 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles can be speedy deleted, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE. Rje 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesneco Torch, The

Non notable publication. No Google hits. There seems to be some little notability assertions (organizing 1st Organizational Assembly, 1st Torch Cup Debate, etc), enough to prevent a CSD:A7, but not for AFD. ReyBrujo 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Airs

Delete – Non-notable individual or, at best, very minor notability. (Not even a particularly well-known name in the sex-positive movement.) Article reads like a vanity piece. Only 620 unique Google hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Iamcuriousblue 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When chcking on the notability of Kim Airs and Grand Openings, I came across this mention that Grand Opening had been bought out be Good Vibrations. That probably mentions some mention in the GV article. I'll add it soon. Iamcuriousblue 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what happened with that, though, as the new Good Vibes isn't in the same space where Grand Opening was (unless Grand Opening moved at some point), and they're not using the Grand Opening name at all, so be careful if you mention that (and don't believe anything the Herald says :P) Catamorphism 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I only do speedy deletion tags when its really really obvious that an article is patent nonsense, obvious vandalism, or something along those lines. If there are doubts about notability, I prefer to run it through an AfD to make sure there's consensus about the lack of notbility. Speedy deletion is a bit unilateral, usually the opinion of one tagger and one administrator, and I've seen perfectly good articles thrown out because two people happen to make the wrong call. Iamcuriousblue 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new one to me. Iamcuriousblue 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Better to be safe than sorry, right? --Tuspm(C | @) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She seems non-notable from the article, especially the poor sourcing (owned an adult shop, now out of business, and joined some organizations) but I am curious about the Playboy mention. She apparently was the subject of a one-hour HBO special[22] (source is crappy gossip-like column on Boston.com) and the amateur show is mentioned in Daily Dig[23]. There is more... it seems she is at least somewhat notable. I am wondering if a cleanup might not be more appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, those programs make a case for the notability of the "You Ought to be in Pictures" event, but I really doubt even that's particularly notable. (Hard one to Google test considering since there's an old movie and popular song of the same name.) I haven't seen any of the two cable TV programs in question, but it sounds to me like these were just brief parts of a larger TV episode. Iamcuriousblue 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on whether this stays or goes, but I wanted to clarify: her store isn't out of business. At the beginning of 2006 she shifted it to online-only. FreplySpang 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you click through the links on the Grand Opening site, you quickly end up on www.sextoysex.com. If you go to the front page of Sextoysex.com, you'll see that its an online business with an affiliate program. If you go to their generic "Lesbian Front page", you'll see that the Grand Opening site is just that site plus the Grand Opening banner. If you click through the copyright information on the bottom of the Sextoysex.com home page for ownership information, you'd find that its run by a Dave Levine, through his company Convergence Inc. It goes without saying that none of this makes a case for Kim Airs notability; quite the opposite, in fact. Iamcuriousblue 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abune Yosef

The population estimates released by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia has no listing for any settlement with this name in the country. However, there is mountain by that name, one of the 10 or 20 tallest in Ethiopia, located in the northern Amhara Region. Lastly, according to my map Mt. Abuna Yosef is 390 km north of Addis Ababa, not 320 km. Once all of the mistakes are removed from this article, there's nothing left to salvage. This should probably be considered a speedy delete, except I can't figure out a suitable category to justify this act. llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, if I take out all of the mistakes, there won't be anything left; & is it simpler to move an empty article -- or delete it & write an entirely new one? (I'm not trying to be snide here; I would apply be bold here & just delete the article & write an entirely new one were it not that "being bold" has acquired a bad reputation recently.) -- llywrch 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, trans-wikified already. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choad

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borouge

Non-notable company. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Zamojc

Non-notable commissioner of public works for Region of Peel in Ontario JChap (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Faction

Another non-notable web comic. No reliable sources or significant and independent syndication. --Hetar 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per WP:V (12 items in google, 4 in yahoo, 0 in ask jeeves), not one of those was a good source. Alos the article fails to state the importance of the subject. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - per JLJeremiah. To be honest dispite the lack of google hits, this is a well written article. One of wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of obscure topics. I see no advert's or copyright violations in this article. (note google is only able to spider something like 20% of the web, so I would suggest someone trying another search engine)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - no sources alone is not reason to delete an article. (if it is, delete half the wiki please). I would suggest a {{unreferenced}} tag be placed on the article —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being unverifiable because there are no sources is one of the primary reasons for deleting an article. If the article cites no sources and you cannot find any sources when you do your best to find some, then the article is unverifiable. Whether an article is well-written or not simply doesn't enter into it. It's up to the editor supplying the content (or someone else) to cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was half finished when listed for deletion, it has been updated since. More information provided. A slip of the mouse caused half of the article to be posted. --JLJeremiah 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weak to no Google presence, I see no WP:RS which state why this Flash animation is more notable than the (insert your own large number here) that get deleted on a daily basis. --Kinu t/c 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Kinu's verdict; This animation is more notable then the bulk of animation articles daily on wikipedia because it is on lifepoint1.com, which gets tens of thousands of uniques per day, Vice faction is a partner animation which shares space with the legendary Xin flash animation series, its popularity is compareable to it. You cannot tell me this is just a normal shitty flash webcomic, this animation has a notable fan basis. Unlike the normal flash articles you see on here, this flash series plot has been weaved; thought out if you will. This is a major project which spans a major fan appeal, per request we created an article on wikipedia. This article has potential to be added to in the future as more information comes forth, wikipedia is a database for notable information correct? Well this is information, my kind sir. --JLJeremiah 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Notable webcomics tend to get talked about. People on other sites talk about them, and post links to them. There's no sign of that for this one. Fan-1967 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a venue for primary source material, such as a new description of a work of fiction that is constructed from direct research. That is forbidden by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you wish to publish a description of a webcomic from direct research, your own web site is the place. Conversely, if you are not using direct research, but are synthesising knowledge from existing sources, then you must cite sources to demonstrate that. That is the way, and the only way, to persuade editors to change their minds. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources and a poor Google and Alexa showing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a highly RS can be found which reviews this comic. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nandesuka 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of international Tartan Day celebrations

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Unfortunately, that's exactly what this list is (it even says it is). The list was apparently split off from the Tartan Day article, but that might not have been the right thing to do. Suggesting deletion: yes, it's a notable holiday, but the main article has enough information already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter baxter, slamdance

Non-notable. Naconkantari 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Call it Magic

Supposedly an upcoming Fox reality series. No relevant search results except Wiki and mirrors. Author (MCcoupe7 (talk · contribs)) also created a bunch of articles on upcoming Disney series which have been Prodded, but this one already was Prodded, so it needs AFD. I've never heard of a "planned" series with 30 episodes in the can, and no press. Likely hoax. At the very least unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harpies in market-driven culture

Article was created by a user who was clearing out a trivia section from Harpy and didn't write the material. He has no attachment to the article and considers it "drivel" as he indicated upon discussing the prod which was removed by a different user. As I stated in the prod, article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and a synthesis of data that results in original Research.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the material originally resided. It was removed from there as inappropriate by the article creator (see Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles--Fuhghettaboutit 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imyst, Inc., Imyst, Imyst mystery shopping

Appears to fail WP:CORP. ghits: [25]. Alexa for site 904,210. — NMChico24 04:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFSZ

Article has been around for a while and has not conformed to WP:WEB

Reasons for failing WP:WEB
1. No other sources other than information from IFSZ(No News Articles, Other Web Sites, ect)
2. No Inpedenant award given.
3. Has not been distributed via a site that is both well known and independent of the creators Aeon Insane Ward 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete I am going to fully re-write this article, I do not believe it should be deleted. I know this site. I have the original article saved, just incase you need it. (Did it. Too late though. I'll do some more later) - User: Iced Kola
Comment I know this site as well (I have been a member since 2003) and the Article Totally fails WP:WEB, it is Nothing against the IFSZ but has to do with Notability. Aeon Insane Ward 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Grutness. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-rock 1998 dj scratch

Sounds like a first-person view. I messed up the formatting, but this is NN and speedy! TrackerTV 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walled garden (wiki)

self-referential, move to meta

  • Transwiki to meta or maybe to project space. Phr (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a nomination. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and the best way you can help AfD be the Best AfD It Can Be (yeehaw!) is to actually give reasons for your nomination, and refrain from treating it like a vote, and straighten your tie, this isn't high school. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since it's a term which is thrown around a bit here, it might help to have an explanation handy domestically, rather than at another wiki. BigHaz 10:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project space. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not truly self-referential; something like this could also be an article in the Encyclopedia Galactica. --LambiamTalk 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination reason is bunk: this is not in any way self-referential. There are plenty of websites, and even wikis, that aren't Wikipedia, so an article discussing a phenomenon on certain websites (particularly wikis) is entirely appropriate. There's no good reason to delete this thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the slightest evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable in the usual sense. It's just internal jargon. We already have a whole wiki just for stuff about wiki culture, namely meta (or there's project space), either of which still seem to me like more obvious places to put the article. Phr (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll say again: Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the Internet. Neither meta nor project space have anything to do with wikis that aren't Wikipedia, and nor should they — however, there's an argument that some aspects of wiki culture should be discussed in main article space. Please realise this. Once you have become fully Enlightened on the sheer number of wikis that aren't Wikipedia (search Google, if need be), feel free to come back and talk about "notability" and "encyclopaedic". And when you do, please tell us why you didn't bother to mention all this in your nomination. Nominations are the core of any AfD discussion, and they need to be good. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are still required to adhere to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And whilst I agree that the reason for deletion given in the nomination is invalid, the original research problem is a valid one. I've looked, and whilst I can find sources that discuss walled garden (media) and (of course) walled gardens, I can find nothing that discusses the wiki-specific concept that is propounded in this article. This article appears to be original research, the promulgation of a new, wiki-specific, concept that hasn't gained traction in the world at large. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the PPR link at the bottom there? æ² ✆ 2006-07-24t14:29z
      • That isn't evidence that the concept has gained traction in the world at large. Such evidence would other sources dealing with the subject, independently written by other people. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three articles on things called "walled gardens" are pretty small and pretty similar. I think they could benefit from all being merged into the one article, and would be willing to do this later. There is still the issue of nothing being sourced, but so long as we can agree (I know the bits I'm familiar with are unobjectionable, and Uncle G's a fairly cluey chap too, so he could look over it as well) that it's all true, we could merge the content together and bung a "need references" sign in. How would that sit? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of what I've found has been source material for content that fits in walled garden (media) (I've added some further reading to that article.), which is in need of attention to bring it nore into line with what sources actually say walled gardens are. The third paragraph of this article is actually dealing with the walled gardens discussed in walled garden (media). It's no loss to lose it from this article, since that paragraph came from walled garden in the first place and in fact should, according to what the actual sources say, have been moved to walled garden (media) rather than to this article.

      Whilst in the wiki world there may be a concept of a set of self-contained pages that are cordoned off from the rest of the project (Indeed, they do this very thing at Wikinews.), I have found no independent secondary source material that addresses that. I haven't found any source material for the concept in this article. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikipedia namespace to comply with WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a worthwhile entry, and it talks about wikis in general not wikipedia. It definately needs sources to back it up, but the best way to achieve that is to keep it until someone can find sources for it.Adam Slack 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Walled garden (media); I heard of this concept before I ever heard of Wikipedia. Not a self-ref, but I'm at a loss for how to source it without referring to another wiki. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP namespace. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't move to wikipedia:namespace or eta because it is not a wikipedia or even wikimedia specific concept, it s a wiki secific concept. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Joseph

WP:BIO, WP:NN chef ... I am AfDing this at the suggestion of another editor (See edit history for details) ... deprodded twice DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Black Mesa

This is a modification for Half Life 2 which has not been released yet, and therefore could not have achieved any sort of notability. See: Wikipedia:Notability StukaAce 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of capitalism

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ebeling

Non-notable singer. Extremly POV. I think we might have speedied it once before. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You know, if you actually got nominated for a grammy, I would have expected the top google page result for your acomplishment to be mentioned somewhere other than Myspace, but maybe that's just me. Irongargoyle 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was speedied as db-empty, but AMG and google turn up nothing.--Chaser T 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete If this enrty was ever added before, it wasn't by me Rodney Libby, IT Director for Holiday Inn Southfield, His name was spelt wrong on Kid Rocks page and had an empty link. I can try and get more information, please let me know thanks
what is extreemly POV? Here is a single page referencing the Grammy Nomination... http://www.deanguitars.com/jon_kott.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

and another

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2826435/a/Para+Siempre.htm

http://cdreviewsonline.com/june2006.htm

http://news.surfwax.com/music/archives/Smashing_Pumpkins.html

ALL 43rd annual grammy nominees:

http://www.salsaweb.com/music/articles/43rd_annual_grammy_nominees.htm

Bob (Robert) Kaeding was an aka for Bob Ebeling:

http://compras.univision.com/Downtown-CDs_stcVVproductId2935930VVcatId403860VVviewprod.htm


Too much information for you to handle? What is your affiliation with Wikipedia & The GNU Free Documentation License Entities(GFDL) Royalguard11? In trying to edit a Wikipedia article, you may encounter edit warriors?

  • Comment These links seem to verify the claims, but I don't know if we should include producers and engineers. I'm ignorant about their notability in the music world, so perhaps a regular editor to music articles can advise. Unrelated to the merits of keeping, I'm quite annoyed that this IP apparently tried to impersonate me by copying my sig. This may have been an accident, but it doesn't look that way. If it was intentional, that is very uncool.--Chaser T 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the POV, which I missed, the whole article reads like a praise of the subject. If it is kept for some reason, then it needs to be seriously rw. -Royalguard11Talk 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on a listing much like other bio listings. Thanks for your help.

Rodney Libby (user:Rodnuts)

  • Delete. Apparently Rob Ebeling (not credited as Bob) was one of 11 recording engineers/mixers who was credited under the Grammy nomination for Album of the Year for Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP (along with Eminem as artist and five producers including Eminem) [26]. That's an accomplishment, but I don't know that he necessarily qualifies under WP:MUSIC by being one of eleven people receiving a tertiary nomination for a Grammy. If the article gets a significant rewrite before the AfD is over, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The grammy nomination was a very very smal portion of this individuals accomplishments. --69.33.172.2 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete So you are saying that the guy that recorded Eminem and Dido's "Stan" is worthless to this culture? What about the guy who taught Kid Rock what rock is. What about the guy who completely produced Tantric, Remy Zero, Rufus Wainwright, Dead Meadow, etc..... --69.33.172.2 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (RODNUTS)[reply]
    • Please stop putting your recommendations in boldface. While AfD is not a vote, you have already stated your boldface recommendation for this article. Nobody has said Ebeling was worthless to this culture. Furthermore, you currently have more in this article about Ebeling's work with Ethan Daniel Davidson than his work with Eminem. The Grammy nomination may be a small part of Ebeling's work but that is no reason not to explain what he was nominated for. --Metropolitan90 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add any info you find, I am trying to get everything I can. I thought this was a team effort?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, and in the unlikely chance it isn't deleted, a complete re-write is needed. Stev0 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...the bias is obvious: A musical prodigy at age 6, Ebeling has been displaying natural talent ever since. Eventually mastering nearly any namable instrument, he became an indispensable part of hundreds of studio recordings, live acts, and a looming figure behind the scenes of uncountable musical entities. Not only that, the article is poorly written and formatted terribly.Gregmitch 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wholly unsourced. BlueValour 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boirpy

Speedy tag removed by anonymous user. Unsourced neologism at best, patent nonsense at worst. 0 google hits for supposed internet slang. "One who is bored and has nothing to do"? Hmmm... :-) Irongargoyle 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasian Actors

Short list with entries already covered in List of Blasians. Crumbsucker 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for same reason:

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

The result was delete, speedily, because Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement. It can't be merged ("delete and merge" is impossible even if this were GFDL text, but anyway...) due to the license issues. Dead, anyway.--SB | T 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Kahless

This page has been lifted from Memory Alpha where it should have stayed as it's not notable in the least. Philip Stevens 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProgArchives

Unexceptional web forum, delete. --Peta 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I do not see any problem with this. This is not just a forum, it's an authorative website and one of the best sources for progressive rock (and metal) on the web. We are always pleased to make the necessary changes and expand on this entry. Also, we have removed a lot of the original content since the original deletion status was applied, because we deemed it trivial and unnecessary. >>> I've made further changes and the entry now sits with me more comfortably. I've also noticed other websites/forums have wiki entries here >>> I'm not sure what kind of sources Wine Guy expects us to use... surely the website itself is proof enough? All the information contained in the article can be found on the website itself. Therefore I do not see any issues here. If Wine Guy (or anyone else for that matter) can confirm to me what kind of sources we are supposed to be using, I will be happy to add them >>> Tellier-Craig, as far as I can tell, has also not made any other contributions to wikipedia, besides his/her comment, so why has their comment not been commented on, like the others? Just curious. --Geck0 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apart from I dont see any problem, this is one of the most important website for progressive rock. As google already cited is as the first result if "progressive rock" is searched. Imoeng 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to have some of the ad-centric content cleaned up, but this is a very useful site for information about progressive bands, albums, and sub-genre definitions. The reviews and band bios are pretty extensive and that part of the site is a pro-bono service of the members, not unlike Wikipedia itself.Sheriff Bob Moore 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sheriff Bob Moore (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an advert for a website. If people want information on ProgArchives, they can go directly to its website. JeffMurph 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a member of that forum and that site. As wonderful as the site is, this entry here lacks.I find the Wikipedia entry of the Archives kinda sloppy and uninteresting. A generalization that pretty much serves to nothing.Very short, simple background. Section "Community" goes very casual, explaining general things. About the collaborators, decent stuff, still rudimentary. Features that express details (something not really important, in my opinion, of a view over the concept of Prog Archives. Miscellaneous things that serve the same thing. In my opinion, not the best way to highlight, within the archives of this site, the Progressive Rock website, forum, concept etc. >>> I see modifications were made, just want to add to my opinion, that there is already an extensive definition of "Progressive Rock", the one given here is half-copied (first paragraph), half easy interpretation. Some sub-genres go repeated for the second time. Also, "Community" section and "The Forum" section are practically the same thing. Tellier-Craig 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic web forum. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical forum vanity, as usual no reliable sources or evidence of media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Listerin 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tellier-Craig. -Royalguard11Talk 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: This site is the best reference that we have in the net to keep alive one of the most artistic expressions of Rock music. 200.4.234.111 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 200.4.234.111 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep Whoever said it's a generic forum got to be kidding. The forum is just a small part of the site, I mean, if there are entries on sites like Ebaumsworld or Something Awful who also have extencive forums along with regular content, PA must stay. Plus it's an extencive informatione resource, not just an entertainment site. -The Miracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. This article makes no reference to independent (third-party) reliable sources, and until it does, it fails WP:V and must go. --Wine Guy Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Come on, the fact that we don't appear in the news shouldn't ve a reason to delete. We're not advertising anything, we're just prog rock enthusiasts promoting music through this wonderful resource, a completely non-commercian information database. The owners of the site have nothing to do with this article, it is NOT an advert and not meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete. Non-notable forum. *drew 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would probably be willing to concede notability ... but there isn't a single citation in the article. Thus, it is presumed to be origina research. BigDT 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulahla

I couldn't find any evidence that this is anything more than a couple of wild and crazy guys messing around in their local supermarket car park. --Spondoolicks 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly but not particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete* This sport is well known and played frequently at the University of Western Ontario. It has been widely discussed (not in the most favourably of lights) in the student-run paper The Western Standard, which unfortunately is only available in printed form. Will attempt to scan archived articles when I return to Western come September. - JeffTaytay (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
  • Delete. If it is real it can be recreated as an encyclopedic article but this reeks of WP:NFT: eccentric Otis, 84th Lord of Seaton and his courtiers Fraser Iggbert Macdonald and... and is WP:OR. Yomangani 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont DeleteThis is a work in progress and obviously lacks the professionalism and full citations of a finished article, but it is based on a real sport and its history has been documented in multiple student papers at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Huron and Brescia colleges. A probationary time to complete the article is well deserved. --SteveKourash (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
  • Weak Delete. There appear to be a couple of mentions of the game, such as down the bottom of this page and in a few other places, but my Google-fu gives no substantial coverage of this sport in what one might refer to as non-trivial publications. Mostly they're Wiki mirrors and "alternate uses of shopping cart" bits. I don't think it quite gets to verifiable levels of notability, though. Tony Fox (speak) 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --G0zer 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete this sport is gaining popularity in southwestern ontario —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliasn (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete* As a student at the university of western ontario I can attest to the sport's popularity, however I think that some liberties have been taken with the content of the artcile. It can be stripped down to a bare-bones article and be encyclopedic. User:costellofaso
  • Delete not notable, the claims of many an unregistered UWO student notwithstanding. Raggaga 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an article. Monkey Brain(talk) 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, article being now reliable sourced. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Wireless

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link other than the website in the article is a blog. Blogs are usually not even allowed as links for articles (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - needs some improvement, but Seattle Wireless is surely the biggest mover in commumity supported public WiFi access. Ace of Risk 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very large and very visible community of hunderds of Seattlites, who assembled this this non-profit to increase access in their community. As valid as Sierra Club or any other non-profit. pr. BillDrisco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.113.55 (talk • contribs) 3:11, 27 July 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added these article links to External links, some which mention the company in passing and some which cover it significantly. It appears to be notable. I'd say cleanup and improve, rather than delete. TransUtopian 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cave, Damien, "Unchaining the Net", Salon.com, 2000-12-01
Kahney, Leander, "Home-grown Wireless Networks", TheFeature, 2001-05-07
Fleishman, Glenn, "The revolution may be wireless", Seattle Weekly, 2001-07-18
O'Shea, Dan, "Peace, Love & Wi-Fi", Telephony Online, 2002-05-18
Kharif, Olga, "Footing the Bill for Free Wi-Fi", BusinessWeek, 2002-09-17
Helm, Kristi, "Seattle's packed with Wi-Fi spots", The Seattle Times, 2005-02-18
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Telco

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable wireless Internet project. I'm going to start looking for newspaper articles, I've seen it get a lot of coverage. --Liface 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to get rid of a well-cited article, it makes a claim to notability, and provides useful information to the reader. --tjstrf 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep, although I'm not quite up-to-date with en.wp's rules of the day. Even if the website is less notable today than it was when I started this article in May 2001, Personal Telco was an important part of an important "free wi-fi movement" around the turn of the millennium. If the article is deleted, Personal Telco should at least have a section in the broader article about this wireless community network movement. Several similar articles could be coalesced (sp?) into that one. Perhaps my old text from Everything2 could also be used for this? --LA2 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PersonalTelco's notability is that it is an important part of Portland's high-tech industry/community, as well as having influence in the larger Free WiFi movement. The article probably could emphasise this more, but even as it currently reads this article explains why the subject is notable. Liface has done a good job of providing cites for this article, but if there are any further doubts, I'd be happpy to sift thru my PTP maillist archive & pull out more references: I expect PTP has been written up several dozen times by the press since its incorporation 5 years ago. -- llywrch 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability has been asserted. --Peephole 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While an org, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. There are many Wi-Fi networks up and running. Including a generic article that includes all of these some what mentionable ones is a better way to go in my mind. Otherwise a lot of these will deserve articles. The same is true for the multiple mesh networks that the various companies are installing. Vegaswikian 23:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davidpdx 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galbijim Wiki

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: Watching the List of wikis page I suspected there might be a VfD on this one eventually as well, and since I wrote the article in the first place I'm going to stay neutral on the vote. The site is to Korean articles on Wikipedia as Wookieepedia is to those on Star Wars, meaning that anything that would be of too much detail here can still be written over there, and the two aid each other in that way. That being said, that in and of itself may not make the article notable so I'm going to just let the vote go according to everyone else's wishes. If it is deleted though there should still be a clear limit for when it would become notable in the future. Should there be a few other blog entries, newspaper articles, if so what kind of newspapers and would those in Korean be acceptable, etc. The Wookieepedia article for example also only has a single blog entry as an external link, but its sheer article count seems to have kept it from deletion. Mithridates 10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I personally don't see any reason to delete it. A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized. It has almost 4,000 articles all related to Korea. I have found a lot of the information there useful. I think it's notable enough to merit its own article. However; maybe should be reduced to stub status, and as the website grows, and as time pasess, it could be expanded further. Merkurix 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized" lots of them have been deleted, kamelopedia, uncyclopedia of stupid, homestarrunner, something based on star wars, and they've even deleted ones with actual notable newspaper sources in them because people demanded the use of multiple newspaper sources. Hardvice 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the person who nominated the article is wrong. The above article does meet noteablity and has recieved The Best 43 Blogs Award [28] for best Wiki blog. In addition, the article has high mention though sites like Dave's ESL Cafe. There is lots of useful information for expats (those who live in Korea). Also it's worth mentioning that FurryiamIAM nominated upwards of ten pages for deletion in one day and he/she has very little in the way of edit history. Davidpdx 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is indeed a bit short of the Wikipedia's standards, but it is my opinion that anyone who have had a read through it will agree that it is a detailed wiki about Korea, and the article has potential for expansion. I would also like to draw attention to what Davidpdx said above and
  • Comment. Like porn stars, wikis don't yet have clear guidelines for establishing notability other than an uneven record at AfD, so Furry or Hardvice or whoever is definitely WP:POINT. It should be noted that for many of its articles, Galbijim is literally the only English-language source available. Since I've done a lot of editing and admin work there I feel I should stay neutral but otherwise, I would be voting keep all the way.--ThreeAnswers 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and relevant. -- Visviva 01:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Open Source Centre

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. When I came across this article, it already had a deletion concern notice, but not AFD. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_24&oldid=65515335"