Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 30: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 78: Line 78:


{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirko Norac}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirko Norac}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Administrando Imperio}}

Revision as of 14:37, 30 September 2006

< September 29 October 1 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HubPages

Company launched in August 2006, likely fails WP:CORP WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 21,062. Húsönd 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastico De Luxe

Nominated for speedy deletion as "spam" by IP user, but I believe that was just a fake excuse. Nonetheless, I'm nominating the article for deletion to determine if this article is really necessary. I'm not familiar with this, but I just did a simple Google test and saw that this appears to be somewhat notable (~75,000 hits also). --Nishkid64 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Bicycles

Delete. Article is an advertisement. Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina, Tel Aviv

Some sort of Israeli bar or restaurant. Some claims of notability, but there's no sources verifying the claim that this place hosted the finals of Kokhav Nolad, or the listed notable guests have been there, so this article fails WP:V. External links for the article are in Hebrew. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramelin (band)

Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Nishkid64 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrasion (band)

Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. You've got an unsigned comment at the bottom from an anon which I've discounted, and then reading the debate Kevin seems to agree that the information isn't all that valuable. Looks like a general consensus to delete to me. Hiding Talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLC Sport Results 2005

This article listing results from a sports season fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. alphaChimp(talk) 01:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Millett Danaher, Mallory Millett, Mallory Jones (redirect)

Appears to be a very minor actor. IMDB profile is limited [1], not much in google either [2] & [3] & [4] NMChico24 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you realize that one of the key functions of afd is actually checking the claims the article makes, rather than not ony believing whatever the article says to be of encyclopedic notability just because its written but also adding further claims of imagined notability not mentioned in the article (Broadway??)? Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She seems to be notable, sort of, but the article as it stands is little more than a list of Mallorycruft. I suggest this article would have a much better chance of surviving if those interested in Danaher's career simply turned it into a one- or two-paragraph stub. --Aaron 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, failure of WP:V for much of article, WP:AUTO/WP:VAIN/WP:SPAM issue with resume abuse of Wikipedia. Aarticle creator is a single purpose account with Danaher's resume pasted into the user talk page[5]. This account also created a resume spam article here:Mallory Millett. The article subject is a very minor actress who has had various bit parts - only some of which were notable enough for IMDB (e.g. "Girl No.1" in the movie Tootsie). Theatre career details contain no claims about notability and no verification. Claims that she wrote two books are based on nothing - zero hits for the two book titles with her name (trying both Millett and Danaher) on google and amazon[6][7] [8][9][10][11]. Claims about photography career unverifiable as notable. Zero hits for searches for mallory/millet/danaher + any of the galleries listed [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. (And I'm sorry but I have to say that the photos on the photo website linked in the article are quite nice but not believably of a professional gallery exhibition standard in terms of content or theme). I also ran a Factiva news and magazine database run - there were only a couple of hits. One hit was a LA Times profile about one of this Mallory's sisters - Kate Millet, a notable anti-psychiatry feminist author. The other was an insurance industry magazine obituary about Mallory's mother, who was one of the first female insurance agents (does not seem to be encyclopedically notable). In both articles, Mallory was only used as a secondary reference. Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what its worth, she writes (and does photography) under the name of Mallory Jones, which is why you couldn't find any record of her works under the name of Millet or Danaher (one of them does show up at Amazon, which is why I added to the article. For what it's worth, I'm not a strong advocate of keeping it, I'm just an editor who likes to try to improve articles I come across while new page patrolling, rather than automatically deleting them. I'm a little bit bothered, though, by putting so much emphasis on Ghits...that's not even remotely a criteria for notability, although being a published author is. Akradecki 01:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the wariness about the google test, I would also emphasize that being a "published author" is not sufficient grounds in itself for encyclopedic notability. Also a listing on Amazon or an ISBN does not guarantee that a book is published by a legit publisher or even if it exists. (Its not that hard to get an ISBN or an Amazon listing... its probably even easier than getting on IMDB.) Bwithh 16:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the Mallory Jones photo site. Sorry again but this is just not believable professional photographic art - the website is very amateurish and the photos, while nice, are all of themes like sunset, sunrise, flowers and animals (e.g. "Ducks" - a set which includes several birds which are, well... not ducks) and vacation snaps ("Spring Break '06", "Montana Trip 2005"). She labels one set of quite standard sunset photos "Armageddon" and that's about as edgy as it gets. As for the book on Amazon[21], this appears to be an obscure, short 1970 children's book about a black restaurant owner's struggle with racism[22] but with no indication of notability. I just don't see any possibly of an article with substantive encyclopedic notability here. Bwithh 16:14, 7 October 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, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus - I'm restarting the AFDs due to extensive changes made to the article(s), and making two separate AFDs for the two remaining articles instead. The other subpages appear to have already been deleted. Cowman109Talk 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new AFDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform - History. Please re-evaluate the articles's candidacy for deletion there. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform

  • Note to closing admin -- I would urge that you close this AFD as "void" per User:Equendil's suggestion below. As this diff should show, the primary author has put in a lot of effort to address criticisms posted here and, as a result, the article has changed significantly since it was nominated for deletion. Since most of the delete votes were made before October 2, it is very likely that the editors were voting on a radically different version article and might not have voted delete if they had read the current article instead. If the new article is worthy of deletion, it can be re-nominated and we can get a consensus to delete based upon the new article.
Also note that the original nominator has withdrawn his nomination of the article for deletion.
  • Comment Ugh, and that's why articles should not be moved until after the AFD is finished. Too bad User:Haseler didn't read the AFD header text and follow the rules.
Nonetheless, it should be obvious that it is time to close this AFD as "void" and start over if anyone still feels that the current article at Lords Reform warrants deletion.
--Richard 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same argument applies to the subpages that were added to the nomination. It's very possible that some of the subpages will need to be deleted but, since the whole framework has been reworked, it's better to leave them in place for a short while and then let us revisit each subpage once the dust has settled. The major issue here is that the main article Lords Reform is gettting long and hard to read. Some subpages will need to be created but it's not clear at the moment which ones should go.
The primary author is still learning the ways of Wikipedia and is being mentored by a few Wikipedians including myself. He admits that the initial article was "crap" but I think you will agree that the current article is worthy of retention and simply needs improvement. I think this could be developed into an FA candidate eventually.

--Richard 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note -- I apologise for wasted everyone's time and getting so upset. I've put the contentious work on User:LordsReform where I, or anyone else who would like to help, can work on it. Having got some kind of initial framework, I'm now populating it with some facts, there are well over 1500 documents to check through (though most are very short, except for a dozen main ones), I'd like to see something "authorative" by End of October 2006. Any help, even someone who would pop in and give us a few hints on style etc. from time to time, would be appreciated!

Mike 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly POV and unsourced. Seems to be original research. eaolson 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fan-1967 below, I'm adding the following to this AfD:
Also adding:
-- Fan-1967 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding:
— NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • There is good and accurate stuff in all of these articels, but much that is opinionated and unsourced - a pity because much of it can be sourced. I would keep Lords Reform and look at whether others can be merged or tidied. Emeraude 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Lords Reform, and then we need to reconstruct that article from the ground up. Lords reform is a very encyclopaedic subject and deserves a proper article. David | Talk 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sick and tired of the hypocracy on Wikipedia. Of course an article about reform of the House of Lords is going to contain opinions and original research because the whole reform process consists of a series of debates about opinions. These pages have not been on a day and I was up to 3am yesterday working to get them into some sort of order before you vultures started picking at the carcass. Where is the tolerance that Wikipedia tells everyone about?

Having set out a template, I was just about to start going through the 1000 different responses to the consultations. I have complained in the past that there is no means (as far as I am aware) to create a trial version and invite comments.

The issue of Lords reform is incredibly complex and given the huge number of views it simply is not possible to explain the issue in one page. I know even less about Wikipedia except its pretended policy of "welcoming everyone" which it does not.

How can some of you be serious. 1000 different people spent days, if not weeks putting together their consultation responses, hundreds of MPs over decades if not centuries have put in huge amounts of time, it is one of the highest profile issues in the UK, and all you can say is "delete it". I'd have some respect for what you said if one of you had actually offered to help make the article more acceptable.Mike Haseler

Comment You misunderstand. It's original research and opinions because they're exclusively your opinions and research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should collect the opinions and research of others (with references) into a comprehensive whole. Also, "tolerance" does not mean we sit back and let you do whatever you want. If you want us to establish a compromise position with you, then you shall have to engage us in debate. I would've though you'd know that given your expertise in politics. Sockatume 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Furthermore, there are plenty of established ways to present trial articles for comment. The most obvious would be to put the article together in your namespace and then find the appropriate forum, via the Community Portal, to ask for comments. Sockatume 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Interesting and significant issue, but the articles are all original research written in patently unencylopedic style. Wikipedia is not a textbook! Sockatume 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The comment that "there are plenty of ways to trial it" is news to me.... but then my only other real experience of Wikipedia when when a bunch of thugs jumped on me last time when I started an article on "incrementalism". I ask myself, is it worth carrying on editing these pages or will they be deleted however informative I make them? At the moment I'm inclined to ignore some of the less informed comments and try to make something on it, but if I'm wrong then please email me now because I've got plenty of other things I could do with my time!

Mike Haseler

Comment. Well, if you don't join the community, you can't expect to find out about these things. Being productive on the Wikipedia is about more than producing a lot of material - engaging with the other editors, particularly over controvertial articles, is incredibly important. Acting as though the Wikipedia "Edit This Page" button is a videogame and your goal is to get your version of the article in place is not effective. You should be spending a considerable proportion of your time debating the direction of articles on Talk pages and User Talk pages. Sockatume 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This is not a controversal article, as far as I'm aware there have only been three contributors and none of them have disagreed. You are making a controversy where there is none. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! I will restate my position. The Lords is one of the oldest institutions in the World. Reform of the Lords is one of the highest profile issues for the UK government. I apologise that I am not an expert at Wikipedia, indeed, I would love people more informed than me to add to the page, but if this subject can't be included in the encylopedia section of Wiki, then what is the point of it? Mike Haseler (And How does everyone else get that user-time stamp?
Comment Is there anyone willing to talk to me offline rather than engage in a slanging match here? Mike Haseler
Comment As an article which is providing informaton on the process of reform; a reform that is largely dictated by the opinions of those involved, it is inevitable that much of it will be reporting of opinions. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading many of the contributions and talking to quite a few MPs and Lords involved, I am will try to provide information on the range of opinions. I am trying to represent these as fairly and neutrally as possible (although regretably I've had to copy and paste some stuff to at least get a start) so for the meanwhilst, some of it is quite obviously my own opinion of the situation, but unless there is something there to edit, how can others make their contribution and so arrive at a mutually agreed consenus?
Comment. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! That's surprising considering I elaborated upon the point in the following sentence. To reiterate: at this stage you aren't making an effort to react to our criticisms (it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, for example) beyond the blanket statement that this is an important issue. It is important when facing a conflict of opinion on the Wikipedia that you sit down and discuss it thoroughly with the other editors. Judging from your previous comments (the sense of being "jumped on" when starting a new article, and the "me against he world" tone you've taken here), this is something you were unaware of.
We agree that it's an important issue, hence the concensus to keep the central article. However the issue is not presented in a thoroughly referenced, encyclopedic manner. It is written like a collection of sections from a textbook or perhaps primer on the subject. It reads like somebody's original research and commentary, in other words. Sockatume 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Marker

Can I thank the person who added the comments to the article - that was very helpfull. If anyone has tried to contact me, I've not received it, if no one has bothered to respond to my request for help and advice .... all I can say is I hope you all choke on the carcass of this article!ImpeachMe 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockatume, I tried to email you. I got to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sockatume where's the "how to contact mr X?" I've never in my life every encountered such as hostile community as Wikipedia. Please forgive if I'm sounding grumpy, there is nothing so infuriating as having half finished work torn to shreads because it .... isn't finished. And then sitting here wondering whether it is both bothering to finish it. And now all I'm doing is talking to myself like some madman!ImpeachMe 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just received an email from an expert in this area, whose input would be extremely valuable. To summaris, they've seen the "this site will be deleted" and have decided to use their time more profitably ... thankyou very much! ImpeachMe 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topic worthy of an article As someone who worked on this article some time ago, I can only say that I tried to include a neutral summary of some of the history and the issues involved in reform. I certainly referred to the Parliament Act 1911. As I was providing background for an article which I take to be mostly about the attempts of the Blair government to reform the House of Lords, I did not go into a lot of detail anout the history but I tried to be reasonably comprehensive. I think that the constitutional crisis leading up to the Parliament Act 1911 is an important historical topic but not central to the contemporary issues.

When I looked at Haseler's work on the main Lords Reform article yesterday I was impressed by it. I did not see the problems described in the comments above.

In summary I think the issue of Lords reform is an important topic in current British politics. There ought to be an article about it, setting out enough history for the non specialist to grasp what is being argued about. The options for reform which have been proposed should be summarised.

I suggest rather than just sweeping away all that has been done before (good, bad or indifferent as it may be), it would be helpful if those who object point to the specific passages they consider to infringe the policies on Neutral POV, lack of sourcing and original research etc. These points can then be examined in detail and if the complaint is found justified the existing text can be corrected so it does comply with applicable policies. I am willing to assist with such an effort. --Gary J 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see some of the historical information about pre-1977 reforms I inserted originally, has been moved from the main article since I saw it yesterday. It is fair to say that is not in itself a complete treatment of the history, nor is it sourced. It was designed to be a section of a larger whole not an independent article. I presume Haseler was going to get around to expanding it later, but perhaps it will assist the community if I do some work on it, to see if something can be produced which is acceptable. --Gary J 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some specific examples for Lords Reform - Democratic Appointments:
  1. "Democratically Appointed Lords is a proposal to Reform the UK House of Lords..." Proposed by whom? Is Wikipedia the only place this proposal has been put forth? If so, it's original research.
  2. "With a jury of 15 and perhaps 10 permanent staff, the running costs would be around £2.5 million per year for the jury." Where did this number come from? Is it valid?
  • For Lords Refrom - Allotment:
  1. Again, where did the proposal come from? Who is doing the proposing?
  2. "In democracy the people are supreme and the politicians are there to serve the people. By voting for politicians we pick the House of Commons on merit and by its nature this makes it literally undermocratic. An upper chamber does not need to have a mandate to govern, and therefore selection by lot is the best way to make it democratic." This is POV. The best way? If this is unambiguously the best way, why are other proposals being considered?
  3. I also just noticed that there is a typo in the article title. "Refrom" instead of "Reform"
  • Lords Reform - Roles
  1. This whole article is very clearly original research.
  2. Explanations by analogy (which is most of the article) are inherently inexact, and not particularly encyclopedic.
eaolson 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all dreadful —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the points about the varioius proposals. They are not single proposals but intended to be summaries of the range of proposal that have been verifyably put forward. All you need to do is read all the proposals on the department of constitution web site, read all the speaches made in parliament. The problem is that the average person doesn't know where to look. If they want to know what proposals have been put forward, they need a summary and that I expect to find in Wikipedia. Mike 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eaolson Thanks for the comments - they were mostly helpful and in the main I accept them and have made some changes (but I'm struggling, and I'm supposed to be working next week). For details see the comments on the talk pages for each of page. I've requested help in several places, and so far your comments are the only help we have received!Mike 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel so bad voting delete but such a good intention for an article is dripping in POV. This article is unquestionably worthy of an article but this is not the way to do it. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone is taking the micky In a few days, I might have had the time to get this article ready for some comment, giving me a relaxed 5 days responding to any criticisms. I can't do what is required in the time - there literally isn't time - Well done! I give up! Mike 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lords reform is a perfectly sensible topic to write about, and there is plenty of third party comment to use as sources without delving into original research, but this seems to be a rather ambitious programme! It may be easier to try to write one article at a time, and split off sections into subarticles when they get long enough. I think the current content in the sub-articles should be merged into the parent article, and perhaps Reform of the House of Lords would be a better title. Having said that, I'm not sure I would start from here... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this AfD as void. The main article is not nominated anymore, various subpages have been added, several apparently deleted as per the author's request, initial comments do not reflect the status of this AfD anymore ... I believe the process has derailed here. I suggest an admin closes this AfD as void. Individual subpages can be relisted individually if necessary. Equendil Talk 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. The lords reform article is a mess, it's not written in a wikipedia-like tone or manual of style or guide to layout or well, it's basically a whole jumble of mess that looks like someone vandalized. Also per IslaySolomon, Opabinia regalis, Sandstein and physicq210 It's DEFINITE DELETE!!! I found the article after stumbling onto three empty articles when stub sorting: Lords Reform - Proposals; Lords Reform - Aims; Lords Reform - Roles which was emptied by User:LordsReform. I don't know if it constitutes as blanking or vandalism since it was (after digging around) I suppose was for a rewrite of the Lords reform series. But it is unwikipedia-like to leave articles like that with improper redirect. Which I think the three articles doesn't even worthy the redirect. (per redirect policy) Also, I would like to rais the issue of User talk:LordsReform's purpose of moving the article onto his/her userpage as it is an irregular wikipedia practice. Also, could someone cleanup this afd? Feureau 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help is much appreciated!Mike 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is NOT irregular Wikipedia practice to move an article to User space. In fact, the action Userfy is a recommendation that shows up from time to time in AFD debates. In this case, the author User:Haseler was advised to move articles that were "not ready for primetime" to User space. So, he created a separate user account User:LordsReform and moved the articles there. The creation of a separate user account for this purpose is not ideal. It would have been better to move the articles to subpages of User:Haseler but Haseler, being a new Wikipedian, misinterpreted the suggestion. He is working on a new article in User:LordsReform/New which he has created as a sandbox. --Richard 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Russ above. Subpages should go though. Lankiveil 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment, to clarify, the main article does need cleanup, but I don't see why it's not worthy of an article. POV and poor formatting is not grounds for deletion, as far as I am aware. Lankiveil 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep Topic is encyclopedic. I can't tell what the original article looked like but the current article shows a lot of promise. It needs cleanup, wikifying and sourcing but all that can be fixed with time. Article creator seems to be a relatively new Wikipedian with good intentions but in need of some coaching. I volunteer. --Richard 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Nishkid64 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showoff (band)

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Murder of Angels, While You Sleep, In the Air

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aconite Thrill

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Ced

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. No sources given to establish notability. [Check Google hits] doesn't show any relevant results in the first few pages. "Lil Ced" search shows a musician by that name, but with an album released in 1997 (subject of the article was born in 1992). "Cedric Jermaine Brazle" returned nothing. Prod tag (and prod2) removed. ... discospinster talk 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just noticed it's been redirected to Lil' Cedric --plange 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is even worse than the first article. MER-C 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An-My Le

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines plange 02:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 04:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshen Ahmed

Possible violation of WP:BLP -- has unsourced negative information on a living person plange 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the unsourced negative text and added the sources template. Keep the remaining because he was the person in charge of a state within a significant country. I think that meets appropriate notablity guidelines.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Project

Not notable. With "'Encyclopedia Project' Moon" I get 1,000 yahoo hits including this wikipedia article and mirrors. Uses metawiki type technology. Thus, it fails WP:WEB. Arbusto 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bargain hunter

Spam garden. Spam since the very beginning, I don't think it's worth redirect or rewrite. Húsönd 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riskopoly

A board game somebody made up. There is no evidence of notability or external marketing, and no reliable sources. Google is no help. Crystallina 03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because the nominator explicitly wants an article merger of what xe sees to be duplicate articles, not a deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage or any requirement for administrator intervention. When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should not be AFD. Uncle G 08:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANSI C

Duplicates information in C programming language without adding anything not already found there. Fuels a misconception that "ANSI C" is some kind of C dialect, as opposed to just being another name for standard C. Suggest replacing with a redirect to C programming language. (See Talk:ANSI C.) Quuxplusone 03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you know, you don't need AfD to (merge and) redirect. This desperately needs cleanup but I'd support keeping it as a separate article specifically on the standard, or redirecting it to a new article on C variants. The main article is long enough already. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7 and recreation of previously-deleted article. Has no incoming links other than from her husband (which I will now delink) but I'll put a redirect there anyway. kingboyk 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sibi Blazic

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Just don't see how spouses of famous people warrant an article. Has copyvio pic as well plange 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xaosflux (nn web) - Yomanganitalk 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscrew

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. --plange 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) plange 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Market

Non-notable, browser game related website. – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Summons/List of final fantasy summons

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before but I don't have any previous discussion links handy at the moment. Basically, the article is way too detailed and therefore fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, all relevant information to include has been discussed to death and can be found at Final Fantasy magic#Summon Magic already. Axem Titanium 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Delete quite inacorrate and should never be created again! Plus many names of the summons creatures are spelled wrong. ShadowKinght(Talk)

I have merged the related List of final fantasy summons into this AFD. My reason for deletion was "Unneeded list, Wikipedia is neither a game guide nor an indiscriminate list of information." MER-C 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Aeris Genju" translates to Wind-type Phantom Beast. Likewise Geo Genju is Earth-type Phantom Beast. Phantom beasts are the recurring mythic creatures, the most common being Efreet and Shiva. -Emhilradim 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But where, either in the series or in third party reliable sources, is the phrase "genju" or "Phantom Beast" ever used to describe all series of Final Fantasy summons? It seems like something fans (or just this set of fans) coined. ColourBurst 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article.


George Schuyler/Rewrite

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses section of Wikipedia:Subpages); no links; article exists in Main Ling.Nut 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Wutugu

Person may or may not be historical figure (is figure in historical book written centuries ago . . . ), the information here is not notable, the character/person is possibly minor MPW 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Page was speedy deleted by User:Geni under G7 Computerjoe's talk 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojas/rewrite

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main --Ling.Nut 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This was an attempt to clean up the main article (take a look at it's state about 1 year ago and see the mess). Anyway, events over took this approach and some clean up was done without a major rewrite. I think this can be speedy deleted, under G7 if nothing else (I'm the only significnt author). I have added the appropreate template so get on with it. Andreww 17:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics and religion

This article is content from other articles about Hispanic religions, mixed with such editorial opinion as "several Protestant denominations (particularly Evangelical ones) have vigorously proselytized in Hispanic communities." I would say "merge," but again, the content is already in the other articles present in the "Latinos and Hispanics in the United States" family of articles. (It is for these reasons that Hispanics and Politics is also up for deletion.) Delete as entirely unsourced POV or redundant content. JDoorjam Talk 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your main reason for keeping Hispanics and Politics (which by the way should have been deleted and is likely to be relisted in the near future) was "the article is basically a cut and paste work off the main article on Hispanics". I find it hard to comprehend why would redundancy serve as a reason for keeping an article. How come you consider that such odd justifications for keeping the hispanic politics article should apply here? The reasons provided for deletion between the two do not even entirely conform.--Húsönd 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuman Affair

del nonverifiable (original research?) based on some facts from Nuremberg trials. As written, the article cannot be deduced form its only reference. `'mikka (t) 05:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Binetti

He likes to ride the bus? Not a good reason for a page. Wolfchild 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation if he wins. Bearcat 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, candidates for a city council with no other assertion of notability don't need pages. If he wins, maybe this can be recreated, but he fails notability as of now. Picaroon9288 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congestion control/Rewrite

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main --Ling.Nut 05:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Richardson (politician)

This is just an ad for an otherwise unknown political candidate Wolfchild 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation if he should win. Bearcat 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he wins, put it back. - Richfife 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he wins and does something significant, put it back. - Teanth 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add external link on main election page like other candidates. Delete this page. - merlinds33 09:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of changes in edited albums

It would be pretty much impossible to get this list anywhere close to complete. Otherwise this seems like an indiscriminate collection of information to me, not particularly encyclopedic. GrahameS 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you mean what I think you mean, we already have this at Clean version and Radio edit. GrahameS 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because this is a current event and is definitely notable. (Page has been properly renamed.) If it dies down in a few weeks, anyone can feel free to merge it back into Mark Foley with consensus. Ashibaka tock 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional page sex scandal (2006)

There is no reason to believe that any congressmen/women, other than Mark Foley, was involved, and the topic is already adequately covered in that article. Delete. (If kept, because no actual sexual conduct is alleged to have occurred between Foley and the pages, rename to something like "Congressional page explicit messages scandal." --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep The associated press, as noted in the article, quotes three top Republican leaders who knew about Foley's actions in 2005.[25] Arbusto 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Roll Call reports "at least" 4 Republican leaders, and it was purposely withheld from Democrats.[26] Meanwhile Congress has approved an investigation. Also the article has only been up for two hours. Arbusto 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the number of confirmations and what will almost certainly be a media frenzy, there's no reason to think that this won't go beyond Mark Foley. Heck, even if it eventually turned out that no one knew about it (which has been pretty well disproven) it's still going to affect other members of Congress. -Senori 06:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)i>[reply]
  • STRONG Keep: With the new information that top Republicans knew and ignored/covered up this event, this is the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment. Preston 06:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't going away, its newsworthy, and important. Vertigo700 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Arbusto, this seems to warrant its own article. Nlu's suggestion of a name change might be worth considering. I'm pretty sure this isn't "the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment." though. -- IslaySolomon 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe rename to "Congressional page scandal (2006)". --Arbusto 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A political event with major and mainstream media coverage, and which has led to the resignation of a member of congress and a major stir in the 2006 midterm house election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, qualifies as speedy keep. This is explosive. I think "sex scandal" is fine as most people agree that cybersex is, well, sex. (It's all in your head, right?) Sorry I moved it during the AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <rolls eyes> Delete. One (1) congressman having trouble keeping it in his pants (virtually, at least) does not a full-blown sex scandal make. Put those lurid details into Mark Foley, and don't bother calling it a (general) sex scandal until it draws in others or until someone uncovers the Jeff Gannon/Mark Foley/<Insert politician's name here> orgy pix. --Calton | Talk 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you have freaking got to be kidding me, AFD'ing this. There's probably not a paper on the planet that isn't covering this. A separate article is required since the news coverage is much broader than Foley; it's focusing on the leadership response. Think Catholic bishops. Change "sex" to "sexual harassment" though, unless he actually .... Derex 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete. Wikipedia articles should exist under a title that the average user would be reasonably expected to search for. Nobody is going to come here and run a search on "2006 Congressional page sex scandal" or anything along those lines. At the very least, this title is a WP:NOT violation; Wikipedia is a not a crystal ball, and as of this point there's no evidence anyone is going to be taken down by this besides Mark Foley. --Aaron 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep. I have to wonder why this was even nominated. I can see the argument for re-naming, however, although since sex was clearly discussed, it is sexual in nature. Moncrief 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for every reason mentioned above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, consider renaming: since the name seems to be the only actual point of contention. There is no question of this being notable and verifiable. I would be concerned about partisan attempts to keep this under Mark Foley and thus avoid potential political damage to the Republican House leadership, but the WikiFairy reminds me to assume good faith. At any rate, there's no way this qualifies for outright deletion. Alba 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Wikipedia is not (no. 6) for breaking news. Pan Dan 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (in effect) by reversion to the original disambiguation page. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progeny

Completely nonnotable band, having an album "slated for release" and a tour not confirmed yet isn't good enough. Bordering on speedy. GrahameS 06:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating article on their bass player.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun - Moon Spear Blade

Article about a single weapon of a single character in a video game, article was repeatedly tagged for speedy due to lack on context earlier but creator kept removing it and added the context, though this context is not notable at all. –– Lid(Talk) 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreated content. Page protected. Nandesuka 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Demon Community

This is a vanity (and orphaned) article. Its sole purpose appears to be an excuse to provide an external link on Wikipedia to the SDC discussion forum. It has also been deleted five times previously, and the song remains the same. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete rewritten stub. W.marsh 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Reasoning

This is basically a table of contents for a current textbook. Probably falls under the category of Wikipedia is not a dump for indiscriminate knowledge? Nothing in here I probably couldn't get off of Amazon, and doesn't seem notable. MPW 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ci&T

This is an advert, written by the subjects, who have aleady removes one prod tag. All the links go their own sites. WP:notability says:"Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service." Chris 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. W.marsh 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Telugu Brahmins

Reminder: New Comments go at the bottom, and sign your message by ending it with four tilde characters: ~~~~.

This list is not an encyclopedia article, and is contextless, as it has no criteria for inclusion - it's just a list of names, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There may be a problem with POV, as well. The article is more than likely beyond cleanup, as it's fundamentally the same as Famous Kapus. Coredesat talk! 07:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • PLEASE Delete List of Famous Kammas, Rajus and Brahmins These articles actually list famous people in each caste among people of Indian (Asian) origin who speak Telugu... Think a list which lists famous Telugu people makes sense rather then break them down by CASTE which means nothing outside that state... Not really informational and given the nature of Wikipedia can be manipulated to include anyone deemed important by a reader... There was another page listing Famous Kapus which is essentially another caste that was recently deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.43.35 (talk)
  • Do not delete List of Famous Kammas This article provides wealth of information about Kammas who achieved something in Life. Do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.151.178 (talk)
  • Famous Telugu Brahmins should not be deleted When one can have a article listing the names of all nobel laureates, names of presidents of united states of america, etc etc... why cant one have a article which lists the names of all famous telugu brahmins, who have excelled in their respective fields, in my opinion wikipedia should include all such articles which are informatory(though the information may be useful only for few people), this article might be a valuble resource for some one who is keen about knowing more about his community and people who made the community proud.
  • Delete all, Personally I can't see how this can ever be NPOV, famous in this case is far too subjective. It has plenty of WP:OR throughout and this is a model example for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If they dont have a wikilink, they should be removed.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do not delete List of Famous Kammas The article is a valuable source of information about many Kamma persons, achievers, intellectuals etc. As long as there is no expression of animosity towards others, it is OK to reatin the article. It may need minor changes such as deletion of "not so famous" people.

  • Delete all as lists with no criteria for inclusion that constitute original research. Adequate criteria for inclusion and clear citations could salvage some of these under WP:LISTS, primarily as a development list, but none of these merit keeping. In their current form, Categories are superior. GRBerry 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion List' If Pages like Kamma and Bramhins have been nominated for deletion then i guess this also should be nominated for Deletion why was this left out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Famous_Reddys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.70.235 (talk • contribs)

  • Please Do not Delete List Of Famous Kammas When we are discussing about a particular caste from a particular state or region, whats wrong with listing the prominent or well known people belonging to that caste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk)
    • Please be careful editing. You accidentally deleted the header of this discussion. Also, new comments should always go at the bottom or at the bottom of sub-thread if threaded, not at the top. GRBerry 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE THE LIST OF FAMOUS BRAHMINS I do not find any reason as to why wikipedia should delete the list of famous brahmins, the page is informative and none of such kind exists any where else, this is the only platform where people can contribute and the list containing the names of famous brahmins can be updated, in case it is decided to delete this page then pages containing the list of american presidents, list containing the names of nobel prize winners, etc. should also be deleted. I put forth the above argument not just for the sake of argument but to indicate that when such lists exist why cant this list be allowed??? Lookuman 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookuman (talk • contribs) [reply]
    Note: This is user's third edit. utcursch | talk 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Delete The Lists Of All Castes These pages are dedicated for various castes in india who are trying use wikipedia as a medium to publicize their achievements and a very bad caste momentum in India. I think wikipedia is being totally screwed up with these bloody articles from India. I pity wikipedia.
  • Delete all per nominator, although the same information might work well as a category. Seems like there's sockpuppets on both sides of this one, and I hope they're realise they're only hurting their viewpoint, rather than helping it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral at this point but bordering on a Weak Delete. I would be curious as to the views of our Indian Wikipedians on this one. Looking at these lists, I don't recognize any of the names but that is just a reflection of my own systematic bias. The few names with Wiki-links are generally informative and the benefit of a list is that encourage articles to be created for other members of the list. At the same time, the concept of a "Famous [caste members]" seems daunting and unmanagable. While there is obviously not a comparison to a US caste, but I can't really imagine seeing an article like Famous Middle-Class Americians or Famous Rednecks on Wikipedia either. I am also concern with the lack of sources for all the articles to verify what makes them "famous". Agne 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there's also lack of sources for what makes them Telugu Brahmins. utcursch | talk 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. If someone feels the redirect isn't useful, just delete it, the list was split from the main article in the first place. - Bobet 09:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Verticordia Species

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but the content may hold some value if deemed appropriate. Bringing here instead. No vote from myself. -- Longhair\talk 07:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Poulianos

Relisting, has gone unnoticed for 5 days with no comments Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography case where "non-notable" directly translates into "unverifiable", and from there leads to WP:BLP problems. This article on a controversial/fringe scholar was first created as a totally uncritical glorifying text more or less plagiarised from this person's own vanity website. Then, other editors cut back on the vanity elements and added some critical material: apparently, a conference organised by this scholar was once boycotted by most of his colleages; he is engaged in continuous legal controversy over the licensing of his excavations; he has hardly been publishing anything except in his own self-published, non-peer-reviewed journal, etc. Problem is, the source for these critical elements is again just hints drawn from his own web material, and as such probably not reliable enough to stand up to WP:BLP criteria. No verification of either the positive or the negative material has been found from reliable external sources. As the choice seems to be that between unverified glorification and unverified criticism, I opt for delete as the cleanest solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. less than 1000 Ghits.--Jusjih 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Books search shows a number of references to him in published books, including a Lonely Planet guide and a number of other publishers. Seems notable enough, as a controversial figure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hm, good find. But the Lonely Planet quote just shows that Poulianos is visible enough through his local museum and his dominance over the excavation (somewhat of a tourist attraction) that popular tourist guide authors may become aware of him. But that still doesn't answer our fundamental problem: We sort of know he's controversial, but we have no reliable sources from the actual scholarly community actually describing what the controversy is. Of the other books Google brings up, one is evidently not from the same discipline (anthropology), another is simply a bibliography of work in the field listing him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Might be worth keeping a little longer, to see if more info turns up. This is a pretty good example of an edge case where Wikipeida might be helpful for documenting that there is a hard to document controversy. Controversial/fringe scholars are usually difficult to find mentioned in secondary sources for much the same reason that literary scammers are - reputable journals avoid mentioning "unusual" behavior for liablity/credibility reasons. Persons working in the field might be usefully consulted regarding this individual, but information provided would fail under the No Original Research clause. Until this fellow manages to get himself into a neutral source (like a legal transcript) it is going to be very difficult to source properly. That said, the existence of the article may be usful in and of itself. 68.250.41.142 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Greek Anthropology is about as far away from my own fields of expertise as one can get, but based on what I can see, a verifiable article seems possible. Google News Archive shows a discovery of his being documented by the international press 30 years ago, and a Google Scholar search brings 21 results. Remember that Wikipedia articles do not necessarily need to be based on scholarly sources (although these are preffered), just reliable sources. I'm sure a great deal of newspaper and magazine coverage exists which isn't on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can easily see why one would want for this to be deleted, but also I am remidned that Greek Anthropology is not likely to summon up many Google hits or many sources outside of a specialized library. This does not mean he is not notable, though. As Fut. Perf noted, it would be difficult to verify much of this information, but I'm not sure if that is reason enough for deletion. It seems to be more of our own insufficiency rather than his. The professor test comes to mind here. This guy is an academian, and if he stood in a lecture hall and spoke for 1 hour per week, he would otherwise prove to be more notable than the average professor. AdamBiswanger1 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't know much about the fellow, but a few quick searches on the Greek Google uncovered some juicy, not-adhering-to-NPOV pages.1 2 3 I'd therefore like to see the article stay (and be improved - it's a poor bit of writing at present), simply because anyone searching for a neutral portrait of him at present is going to struggle. --DeLarge 14:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The pages you found are exactly what the original glorifying version of the article was based on - and it's still the only information we have about the guy. All the critical elements in the article were derived from reading 'between the lines' of just these same pages, which means they are just as unreliable as the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems enough, though. We keep the basic factual info in 1 -- birthdate, birthplace, educational background, etc etc -- and then briefly detail the controversies in his work from the other two links, without making any critical comment; "in 19xx Dr Poulianos proposed that blah blah. As a result of this controversial theory, blah blah happened." We don't need to pen a FA here, but if we're happy that he meets the notability requirements, I don't think we should exorcise the whole article. --DeLarge 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have said the same, if it wasn't for the much stricter standards for verifiability forced by WP:BLP. That was the whole point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're disputing his birthdate and birthplace, for example, or the fact that he established the Anthropological Association of Greece? The AEE was founded by the man himself. As per WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source, "Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if it is not contentious/it is not unduly self-serving/there is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject". I think we're covered here in that regard. --DeLarge 08:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, sorry for being obstinate :-) but... Of course the basic bio details aren't the issue. The issue is we lack reliable information about exactly the only thing that makes him notable, i.e. his controversial findings. Everything we have about that is in fact either "unduly self-serving", or in danger of being defamatory if not extremely well sourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you google search "aris poulianos" several good links show up. One says "The major excavations were made by the anthropologist Dr. Aris N. Poulianos, who spent many years in the caves." While another says, "Grecocentric anthropologist Aris Poulianos makes stronger claims than Angel about Greek "continuity", insisting on "the incessant biological continuity of ..." This link seemed good, www.ancientgr.com/Unknown_Hellenic_History/Eng/interview.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, that second page is part of exactly the same walled garden of extreme fringe, national-mysticism pseudo-scholarly websites and journals (grecoreport.com, "Davlos" etc.) that are the *only* witnesses to his work. It's a site that sports "findings" such as the prehistoric penetration of ancient Greeks into America, the identity of the Mayan language with Ancient Greek and whatnot. The first page is an amateur tourist description. All links from it are again into the walled garden. The only sign of light is that it lists some academic bibliography, some of which may represent the critical evaluation of Poulianos' claims. If somebody could go and check those publications, we would be okay, otherwise we still have: not a single reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD:A7 Gwernol 13:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ForumDigger

Failure of WP:WEB Mike 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youmail

Spam for a non notable product offered by a non notable company Nuttah68 08:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, why does spam like this have to go through a five day deletion debate? MER-C 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a failure to meet the product criteria in WP:CORP and does not cite reliable sources.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Maybe the article just needs to be updated? I know that it's owned by a company out of New Zealand called Zeacom, that's been around for more than a decade - they're in like 20 countries. I'm using it and it's very much a reliable product/company... regarding reliable sources, they were just in the New Zealand Herald last Monday. Not sure who these people are who are bashing the article - perhaps they could do some research and update the article?! I'm new to wikis but starting to contribute on subjects that are close to me. As a user, I think this should stay. posted by: Kelly, kellyeboyle@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.140.162 (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete - Yes, I posted this article and I don't think it should be deleted. Zeacom (whole owner of Youmail) is absolutely a notable firm - in existence 11 years, with 2000 business running this software and more than 60,000 end users in 21 countries, offices in Irvine California, Atlanta Georgia, Auckland New Zealand, Sydney and Melbourne Australia and Brighton, UK. If I've made a mistake of some sort in my posting, please help me correct it but please don't delete it. This is NOT an advertisement, nor is it intended to be. It is merely a statement of fact. And if I do say so, when reading there is no use of persuasiveness or selling at all. There isn't even a reference to the site! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brickley.

Delete Reads like an advertisement, no quotes from reliable sources, lacks notability. I think this qualifies for speedy delete under WP:CSD G11. If it becomes a substantial company, and they have a better article, they could resubmit later. EdJohnston 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Shanahan

A biographical article about a non-notable person. There's just enough assertion of notability to make it not really a db-bio CSD. (Dull procedural note: for some odd reason, this article was created with the name "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Shanahan", from which I've moved it into the article namespace; voters who cast similarly recursive votes will receive extra credit.) Finlay McWalter | Talk 08:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Vanity "She also goes by her online handle Kt Shy," And low and behold the user who created the article is Ktshy. I'd also be okay with Userfy as well.EnsRedShirt 10:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one other thing the only edits that Ktshy has done are on this article, which was created in April..EnsRedShirt 10:21, 30 September 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Apartments

Contested prod about a non-notable building. MER-C 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James K.A. Smith

Contested prod, reason was "This may not be the best-formatted article, as it is my first. However, I think that it is necessary because while Smith holds the title of Associate Professor, he is relatively a young scholar with an already impressive body of work. In addition, he is publishing increasingly recognized popular works in his field." I still don't feel the article is notable. MER-C 10:00, 30 September 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, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to National Capital Marathon. Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Captial Marathon

Incorrect spelling of title NorthernThunder 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion enochlau (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tfc Robert Gavell

This page is incomprehensible, has no context, no sources or references. What is it about? Standards of grammar also very poor, so could be improved, but still would not make the article meaningful. Emeraude 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. kingboyk 12:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Of Spice Girls

This page is pure spam. There is no announcement of a best of. No confirmation that the album will be or has been released in Europe. The release dates stated in the article are completely made up. The list of producers includes names - such as R. Kelly - that the group have never worked with, and the tracklisting is completely made up. Pure vandalism from start to finish. The user that created the article has no sources at all. The article has no merit whatsoever. Rimmers 11:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turntable Timmy

Nonnotable book/cartoon project NawlinWiki 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remembrall Live

Podcast. Non-notable. Felix Felicis 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of record producers

This really isn't a sensible topic for a list. There's just too many for it to be complete and a manageable size, and most readers I suspect won't want to read line after line of "person x produced albums by x y and z". Categories and a search engine are far more effective for readers. kingboyk 12:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by W.marsh (talk · contribs). Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Green

Vanity. Does not meet WP:V or WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeveLinux

Non-notable Linux distro. Contested prod. MER-C 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Reale

Not convinced about the notability of the subject. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep beyblade entry is notable. NormR 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User just got blocked for vandalism. MER-C 13:22, 30 September 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, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and/or no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College-Ready Math-Science School

Articles about schools that fail to assert the notability of the subject. All are contested prods. Also nominated are Bosworth Commuity College and Clapham School. MER-C 12:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User just got blocked for vandalism. MER-C 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: it's just the building that doesn't exist yet. Still not a notable school. Opabinia regalis 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just wanted to say that grouped nominations are often appropriate (and NOT in "poor taste") when the subjects in question clearly all have the same level of notability (eg. Starcraft units, albums by a particular artist, etc. - would YOU want to nominate every character in non-notable arbitrary webcomic for deletion separately?). These probably shouldn't have been grouped together as clearly some schools can be notable and others may not even pass WP:V. Wickethewok 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni House

Student residence with no claim to fame -Nv8200p talk 13:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete. This is a useful source for the history of a campus building at UWO. Many other residences at UWO are on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.168.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The fact that other articles are potential candidates for deletion does not mean this one should stay up. Dormitories need to have very long histories to be considered notable. Besides, there's only 1 cite, and it's not even referenced. Delete. What are the other residences for UWO, by the way? ColourBurst 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to me that requirement of being in a Historic Register are biased towards U.S. establishments (UWO is a university in Canada). I believe there's an equivalent for Canadian sites, but I can't find it right now. ColourBurst 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadege hottier

Does not meet WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HQ9+

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscated Weird Language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Article not expanded, so delete votes carried. (aeropagitica) 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZT (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all except: The PayPal Wars, Eric M. Jackson, The Stanford Review, Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, and Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed. The result for these articles is no consensus, suggest re-nomination of those individually to obtain clearer consensus on those specific articles. Petros471 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Ahead Publishing

Non-notable. Lead article of a walled garden of spamvertisement articles created and then abandoned by the IP address 64.81.83.193 in August 2005, who has never been back to Wikipedia since [31]. Most of the cites in the article are misleading attempts to assert notability. Suggest deletion of this article and all related articles in the walled garden which I'm about to list below. Aaron 14:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Per badlydrawnjeff's comments below, I'd like to make clear that I am asserting all of the articles below also fail notability on their own terms, above and beyond the walled garden/spamvertisement problem. (I will provide details for any individual article upon request.) This is the entire problem of why walled gardens are bad for Wikipedia: It allows people to mistakenly fall into circular reasoning traps when it comes to AfDs (e.g. "Keep Candice E. Jackson, she's notable!" "For what?" "For writing Their Lives!" "But why is Their Lives notable?" Because it was written by Candice E. Jackson, and she's got an article!"). (Please note I'm not accusing badlydrawnjeff of circular reasoning; I consider his vote 100% legit. It was just his comments that led me to think I didn't make a clear enough nominating statement.) --Aaron 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, and I want to assert that I didn't think your comments were directed at me before I read your last note. I do think many (most?) of these meet our standards, but some do not. Just like I wouldn't want to see the obvious ones (These Lives, Help! Mom!) deleted because some of the minor ones might not meet it, the minor ones shouldn't just be kept because of the high notability of two of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also nominating for deletion, none of which are notable and seem to exist only to reinforce the false notability of the original article:
Candice_E._Jackson
Eric M. Jackson (third nomination)
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine (second nomination)
Thank You, President Bush
Norman Book
The Stanford Review
Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed
Katherine Debrecht
The PayPal Wars

--Aaron 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally know that many of these articles are legitimate, and include information worth keeping on Wikipedia. Please don't delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.223 (talk • contribs) 13:52, October 1, 2006

— 128.12.118.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These articles chronicle important issues in our current society. Any decision to delete would not be in keeping with the first Amendment of the constitution. There are many articles that relate to a seemingly small subject, but these articles are rightly retained by Wikipedia for the purpose of making that information known to the public. Do not delete!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadna13 (talk • contribs) 19:18, October 1, 2006)

— Kadna13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep all for now. The publisher is certainly notable, due to the books on this list - specifically "Help, Mom!" and "The Paypal Wars." However, a discussion could be useful on some of the other articles. As they're all related to the publisher, keep all for the time being. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand a bit, "Help, Mom!," "The Paypal Wars" and "These Lives" have all recieved noteworthy independent media coverage. Their authors, therefore, would also be worthy. I'm not sure if the rest of the list falls in, but I again suggest individual AfDs for the few that may be questionable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot per nom. I think this publisher may become notable in the future, but not quite now. At this point it looks like a moderate presence in a niche market. At best, I think all the articles should be merged into one. -Kubigula (ave) 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said delete before and Kadna13's comment above confirms me in this. I'm not American, but I do know the First Amendment and that it starts with the words "Congress shall not...". Wikipedia is not Congress, so delete away. Emeraude 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stanford Review is the second most-often published student publication from the Stanford Undergraduate Student Body. There are Wikipedia pages for the Dartmouth Review, the Cal Patriot, The Harvard Salient, and other such publications that are produced by undergraduates around the country just like The Review. None of them should be marked for deletion, and neither should the Review. And as for me being an SPA, I'm sorry but I am a new member of the group and as a college student don't currently have time to edit a lot of articles. I plan to do so in the future. Please Do not delete the Stanford Review from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.219 (talk • contribs) 14:26, October 2, 2006

— Possible single purpose account: 128.12.118.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Comment: 1) One look at my user page should be enough evidence that political motivations had nothing to do with my nominations. I nominated them because they're a Walled garden of vanispamcruft. 2) At least half of the "extensive references" in these articles were added by - surprise! - Turkey2020 in the last 48 hours, after my nomination [32], and most of the rest, which were unpersuasive, were added by him earlier because, well: 3) Turkey2020 is an SPA. Except for his very first edit - a keep vote on a long-settled AfD - he has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that isn't to one of the articles that are the subject of this AfD. 4) His "deleting X means we must also delete Y" argument is, of course, fallacious and is listed as a classic "argument to avoid" at WP:ILIKEIT/"What about article X?". 5) I will AGF and simply note that his comment about WND Books is misleading; the publisher has signed some sort of deal to take over that imprint in 2007, but as for now it's part of another company. And WND Books doesn't even have its own article, just a paragraph inside WorldNetDaily. --Aaron 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 1) Aaron seems to imply that entries he nominates for deletion shouldn't have references or additional information added in an attempt to improve them. 2) When it is pointed out that the articles he wants to delete have long lists of sources (including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, NewsMax, US News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Post, etc. etc.) which contradict his non-notable claim, Aaron does not defend his original hypothesis but instead dismissively uses "extensive references" in quotes as if that means the references can therefore be ignored. 3) Aaron calls into question the credibility of who makes edits but not the edits themselves. 4) Aaron ignores valid attempts at benchmarking other articles. 5) Aaron claims my point about WND Books is "misleading" for some reason because the books do not hit store shelves for a couple of months; such reasoning is convoluted, and the fact that the publisher won the contract ipso facto further contradicts Aaron's claim of non-notability. Conclusion: None of the points Aaron makes demonstrate the claim on non-notability; this claim is contradicted by numerous verifiable references to independent media sources. --Turkey2020 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other than one point, I will let Turkey2020's actions, edit record and statements speak for themselves: The generally accepted standard for good faith editing of articles in AfD is to simply make the edits and then come to the AfD and post a note to the effect of, "I've made an attempt to improve this article/these articles, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now and see if they're any better before making a vote. Thanks." (Or, alternatively, to do the reverse: Post that you intend to edit and then carry out those edits and come back to let the AfD participants know that you're done.) Instead, T2020 made the edits quietly and then came in here to post a "keep all" vote using his comments to imply that all the articles were already in the state they're in now (not that his changes have done anything to address the concerns I raised in the nomination; IMHO some of them have been made worse), and that my nom was thus making fraudulent claims. Are those the actions of a good faith editor? You make the call. --Aaron 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Paypal Wars. Apparently it won some award. If the award does not create notability (not all awards do), delete Paypal Wars as well. It is worth noting that these articles are related to the Rod D. Martin and TheVanguard.Org articles, which were total vanispamcruft. Also I am agnostic on the question of the Stanford Review, which is after all a legit publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.9.65 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep it but at some conditions like more developpement to the entry and adding the neutrality of this article is disputed and I'm agree with Turkey2020 on one point, if we have an entry about Bush's Brain, why not for Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed? And to my eyes, this book critic more the current "Social liberals" then the "classic liberals" or "economic liberals" or libertarians. --Sd-100 October 5 2006, 19:25 Eastern time zone
  • Comment as regards World Ahead Publishing, I suggest that WP:CORP should provide a pretty good basis for a decision. Greenshed 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Paypal Wars (and by extension Eric Jackson) per 68.51.9.65, as EJ/PP Wars appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Although contemplated keep on Thank you President Bush due to its lineup of contributors, its appears to be purely destined for partisan causes and almost certainly Vanity for Dubya. Its very low Amazon rank (in the 494 thousandsths) is telling me this is obviously a red card. The political parties are skilled at setting up front organisations to channel campaign finance, and it appears it would come as no surprise that they are all helping each other here to get their causes noticed. For Stanford Review, I vote mergeto Stanford University unless/until its notability independent of the University can be proven. Ohconfucius 06:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Articles can be rewritten in whole or in part in a Sandbox, not the article space. (aeropagitica) 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Metal/Rewrite

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses, article exists in Main. I tried to decipher what what going on in Talk:Gothic metal. Technically I should have put Merge tags on it, but let's be realistic. Frankly, I think this relatively large subpage will sit in Main space forever, unmerged, because there is no clear sense of direction for merging. Delete or userfy ASAP, as it is gathering edits. --Ling.Nut 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by now-blocked user. Duja 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Norac

This article is about an insignificant military person known to outer world only through the crime he commited. Not a single encyclopaedia, military journal, mainstream media, military institution, or historian ever expressed any interest in him. The article is written along with the ruling nationalist agenda aimed to relativize the crime he commited.

All his military 'achievemnts' are recognized by the people who were directly responsible for the crimes against civilians (Janko Bobetko, Franjo Tudjman). Actually, this man (Norac) is uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him. I hardly could imagine any interest of an avereage educated reader of Wikipedia - in that man.

All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario.radin (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - notability established: first general of the Croatian Army to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court; also note that the user who proposed AfD did it only after he vandalised the page several times --User:Dijxtra 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid giving false references as yo did here!!!!--Velebit 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that Wikipedia is suppose to be unique is the main reason the article should be kept. Why delete anything as long as the article follows the rules for submission. I agree with Finlay McWalter in-part too in that if anyone thinks the article's relativizing, praising, primitive or biased they should change it.
I agree with User:Dijxtra. Do you want to be manipulated by vandalizer? As for Unsigned's comments, in all due respect, you speak of poor education on the part of the contributor, but your text sating, "...and primitive person" maybe should read, "...and a primitive person" and "...the same mental hevel" maybe should read, "...the same mental level." Perhaps it was accidental. If it's correct or acceptable English I apologize.
As about the vandalizer - the very author of this article about Norac twice vandalized my contribution to the Talk page. Bad thing for Wikipedia is that the User:Dijxtra is an administrator.--Velebit 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we're suppose to be here for though. We're not suppose to censor people. Don't delete it. If anything change it. But definitely keep it. DavidWJohnson 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article follow strict and primitive nationalistic agenda aimed to whitewash the image a petty war criminal. As it mentioned before, if we allow this article here the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia will be gravely compromised. High-ranked by the men who are war criminals too--Velebit 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is funny thing to even read this article. Telling people about youngest ever colonel of Croatian Army and not telling the fact that the Croatian president Tudjman - and his superior in some way - was a man despised by the world leaders (nobody attended his funeral) and considered as a war criminal too - is a fraud! It is fraud not to tell that Norac's superior and commander-in-chief Janko Bobetko was an indicted war criminal who avoided the ICTY dying before getting chance to be handed over to the ICTY. To put it differently - what is the real value of this rapid advancement of a half-literete man in the ranks of some army??? It is fraud to say that he was duke of Sinjska alka and not to tell that the Zagreb diplomatic corps publicly annonced their disgust by the fact that this (Norac) man was honoured that way and refused to participate in this commemorative and solemn event. I am asking all those writing Keep why they did it so?
  • Keep per Bwithh, Finlay McWalter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 38K+ GHits and deals with an important event. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all above. It will need heavy copyediting, however, among other things.UberCryxic 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article is still a garbage. A bastard is a bastard - not a notable!!! Not a single serious encyclopaedia has a Norac entry!!! Please, do not degrade Wikipedia!!!
  • Strong Keep Tsk, tsk, tsk. Revisionism at its finest. Perhaps we should also remove the article on Mladić as well? I mean, he hasn't even stood trial, let alone been convicted. Agree with Dijxtra. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nomination for deletion is weak, and I believe in bad faith. Just because his notability is for war crimes doesn't make it any less of a topic for an encyclopedia. "All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected." Then following the nominator's logic, we should delete William Calley, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. because each is an "uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him." In Calley's case, that is absolutely the only thing he is notable for. Thanks for your concern about keeping the dignity of wikipedia at its oh-so-lofty levels, as I'm sure that is your primary concern, but the disingenuous edit/deletion wars between various Balkan region ethnic groups, Turks and Armenians, Indians and Pakistanis, Arabs and Israelis, Republicans and Democrats, pro-Iraq War people and anti-Iraq War people, and Mets fans and Yankees fans are really wearing thin. If you don't think the info is neutral or correct, change it with verifiable facts.--Nobunaga24 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/De Administrando Imperio

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_30&oldid=78688261"