Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Undelete| |{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|<div style="display:none;">}} {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia|{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |#default={{error:wrong namespace}}<div style="display:none;">}}|{{error:not substituted|AFD}}<div style="display:none;">}}}} {{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|</div></div>}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 0px 7px; background: #EDF1F1; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
'''This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]][[Template:Afd|.]]'''<br />
Please share your thoughts on the matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1|Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 2}}}|this article's entry]]''' on the Articles for deletion page.<br />
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|guide to deletion]].<br/>
----
<small>''[[Template:AfD footer|Steps to list an article for deletion]]: &#123;&#123;subst:afd&#125;&#125; • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template:Afd2+starter&editintro=Template:Afd3+starter&title=Wikipedia:Articles+for+deletion/{{PAGENAMEE}} Preloaded debate] ''OR'' &#123;&#123;subst:afd2|pg={{PAGENAME}}|cat=|text=&#125;&#125; • &#123;&#123;subst:afd3|pg={{PAGENAME}}&#125;&#125; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}} log]
</small></div>
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia|{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |#default=</div>}}|</div>}}
{{{category|[[Category:Articles for deletion]]}}}
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
{| width = "100%"

Revision as of 23:22, 2 October 2006

This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this project page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion.

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

Steps to list an article for deletion: {{subst:afd}} • Preloaded debate OR {{subst:afd2|pg=Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 2|cat=|text=}} • {{subst:afd3|pg=Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 2}} log

< October 1 October 3 >

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 nomination withdrawn. Whispering(talk/c) 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women Fully Clothed

Originally {{prod}}ded as nn; prod tag was removed by possible SPA 71.203.231.148 with the edit summary "its not like they dont exist". Forgive me if I find that argument less than compelling, so on to a full-blown AfD we go. Subject is nn; article is a WP:OR violation written in a wildly unencyclopedic manner; roughly half the sentences contain WP:WEASEL violations; and not one word of it is properly cited besides the fact that the group exists at all. Also, while Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) is only a proposal at this point, I will note that this comedy troupe fails nine of the ten criteria currently listed, and for that tenth one it does pass, Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) suggests that the article name instead be used as a redirect to the name of the troupe's most prominent cast member and listed as a side project on his/her page. Needless to say, I think this adds up to a big old Delete. Aaron 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to weak keep based on Roninbk's excellent cleanup. I still don't think they meet the proposed comedy guidelines, but they're close enough. --Aaron 15:37, 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. Nufy8 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Yavanov

Does not seems to be Notable. Cannot find any Google references about the author or his book abakharev 00:38, 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. Nufy8 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmocon

Non notable. No references for the book besides Wikipedia and its mirrors abakharev 00:41, 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. Nufy8 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexandra Chronicles

Delete. A local newspaper. Article does not reveal any circulation numbers or any sources that might substantiate notability. "Alexandra Chronicles" gets 34 Google hits, where one of them might possibly be relevant but probably not. ... discospinster talk 00:43, 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. Nufy8 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody suicide gang

Delete. Subject does not meet WP:MUSIC with one self-produced album. Only 26 unique Google results and nothing on AllMusic. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 00:45, 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 Naconkantari 04:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Law & Policy Review

This is, at the moment, a non-notable law review. There are no substantial references in the article itself, and the 8 unique search results add nothing. It's rather ironic to nominate a law review for deletion -- you'd think that if this article has been generated by those involved, they would understand why this article is not acceptable for this project right now. Erechtheus 00:47, 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 Naconkantari 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS Schedule Variations

Violates WP:OR and WP:NOT a television schedule. Kirjtc2 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to inform the public of timing variations... Is that too much to ask??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 1 2006 8:58 PM EDT
  • Wait! Before you do that!!! What do you suggest I do??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 1 2006 9:31 PM EDT
  • I recommend that you accept that this article will not survive, and not take it personaly. Topics like this are not candidates for articles, no matter how well intentioned they are. Why would anyone care about this information in the long term? Resolute 03:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sad, because Wikiscripps 07 has obviously put some work into this, but I sure don't know where we could put it without violating a guideline. --Aaron 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider. I was only trying to help!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 1 2006 11:02 PM EDT
  • Possible Solution: Could I at least relocate the article here before you delete it??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 MON OCT 2 2006 3:30 PM EDT
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Robert Pangborn

Unnotable usenet poster. Fails WP:BIO. Similiar article deleted, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Pangborn, but never had a full afd discussion. Thus, its shouldn't be speedied. If deleted, these pages should be protected from re-creation. Arbusto 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lessee... a rape threat, a few awards from net.kooks, and a fake diploma? Nothing there to suggest he is even close to Mentifex or Timecube levels. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and speedy it quick Probably libelous. Clearly a hit piece. "There is much controversy over whether Pangborn's services are of any value", "Diploma mill", etc. Look at the name of the only reference. I'd indef block the poster too for a clear and intentional WP:BLP violation, since he's got essentially no constructive contributions. Derex 06:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its clear this is at least the third time this has been deleted, but it should be fully reviewed with the afd so we can speedy it in the future. --Arbusto 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just leave a BLP violation up for people to chat about. The concern is a legal one. See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. That describes the _entire_ article. Jimbo says there "I can NOT emphasize this enough. .... It should be removed, aggressively" Derex 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just removed everything obvious. Now the main problem is that the whole remaining article is unverifiable without a bunch original research. Derex 06:47, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usenet.kooks

Article does not assert notablity per WP:WEB and things like criticism aren't sourced. In 2005 another afd voted keep many asking for clean up. Arbusto 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass WP:WEB? It reads: 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2) The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. 3) The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Arbusto 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this newsgroup is very notable on the Internet. Admittedly it probably doesn't pass WP:WEB, but it's still notable and ought to be in an internet encyclopedia. - Richardcavell 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if cleaned up before close of discussion, otherwise delete. I don't think WP:WEB applies here, as Usenet exists outside of (and greatly predates) the World Wide Web. And there's no question that alt.usenet.kooks meets notability based purely on its role in Internet history. However, I'm not a big fan of articles that are given almost a year to get cleaned up but then never are. If nobody's willing to bring it up to spec, it should be deleted. --Aaron 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "needs to be cleaned up" is not a criterion for deletion. There are plenty of articles in far worse shape, many of which have been in worse shape for longer periods of time. There isn't a deadline at which all of Wikipedia's content gets shipped off to the printers, after all, what's the harm in taking our time? Bryan 06:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently "taking our time" is quite similar to "never gets done" Bwithh 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Past a certain point, the fact that a cleanup tag goes unheeded is itself inherent evidence that perhaps the subject isn't as Wikiworthy as we'd like to believe. In such a case, it may be preferable to simply delete the article without prejudice, so that someone else may come along later and produce a better article from scratch. And if nobody ever does, well ... --Aaron 16:59, 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 Naconkantari 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geek license

Delete. Non notable meme; crufty-licious WP:NEO --- RockMFR 01:21, 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. Punkmorten 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lucas (radio host)

Delete. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Nothing notable turned up on google. Brimba 01:36, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nambiar (Kshatriya)

Comment: I am afraid that (in my opinion) this is not similar to Khatri (Kshatriya)  Doctor Bruno  01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The information given here is complete fiction and nonsense...with absolutely no historical reference or relevance...i am in a position to say so because i have directly verified several facts pertaining to this article from old books itself...so please Delete...examples of wrong facts given here: customs:Upanayanam...this was only for Brahmins in that part of India...the mentioned dynasties etc are all utter fantasy of the author...besides the name of the article itself, Nambiar (Kshatriya) is wrong as Nambiars are part of the Nair caste which is not a Kshatriya caste technically. Manu
  • Keep: As stated above this is not a Quick Deletion article. The problems within the article (there are many) such as the Indo Aryan origin claim must be changed, and the article should not be deleted. I think we can work through the problems presented, on the discussion page, and find a way to best represent the facts.Kshatriya Grandmaster 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As stated previously, the name of the article ir wrong and that is the first thing to be considered. Change the name and correct the fantastic facts in the article.
  • Delete: Wrong facts mentioned in the article. That is reason enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep: Comments cannot be verified without them being signed, therefore please sign your comments. There are ways to work around these problems presented. We can discuss the title and the contents in the discussion page. In the mean time this article must be kept since, as mentioned above, it does not qualify for a AfD. Kshatriya Grandmaster 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ifrah Warsame

Non-notable model. There's no assertion of notability, it fails the Google test [4] and seems to be a vanity page. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It didn't turn up a 404 for me, but a page on the Names Database (which might as well be a 404, in terms of its quality as a "reference"...) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:33, 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 Keep Naconkantari 04:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Goblin's Last Stand

Non-notable fan film. Delete as vanity. --InShaneee 02:01, 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 merge into The World of Kong. --Keitei (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong monsters

To start with, most of those creatures are only mentioned in another encyclopedia (The World of Kong), which brings down questions of copyright. If we offer a free alternative, it is a significant threat to the sales of the book. I also have problems with the silly prose, the complete non-notability, and absolutely no hope of expansion (being that they only exist as entries in a fictional encyclopedia). Interrobamf 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for All- I see no real reason to delete these articles. First of all, your request sounds like a bad faith nomination, and, while I don't mean to attack you in any way, you seem to have many references to vandalizing user talk pages and spreading your own ideas. Second, I don't see "a significant threat to the sales of the book" as a viable argument. We have articles about many books, but no one has listed one for deletion based on the fact that it would detract from the book's sales. As for expansion, there will always be a chance for an article to be expanded (images, infoboxes, etc.) I also don't see any "silly prose" that you suggest. I hope this serves as a good argument against your nomination.

bibliomaniac15 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) PS: By the way, the use of the paleobox in Vastatosaurus rex was allowed by the creator of the paleobox, Kazvorpal, when I asked him. Here's a link: User talk:Kazvorpal.[reply]

    • Do you care to back up the existence my so-called "vandalizing"? Besides the incident about fair use images on a user page, which is againist policy, and a situation you clearly don't understand? You also do understand how irrelevant that is to this debate? And that this is hardly a bad faith nomination compared to nominations that simply state "fancruft"?

      Moving beyond that, articles on books don't delve into exact details about their content nor is that even comparable to this situation. It's quite simple. The only information about those fictional species is in the book, which is presented as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia copies all the detail. People now have little reason to buy the book because they can get all the detail (and under your proposition for expansion, images) for free. Do you not realize the threat?Interrobamf 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't realize any threat. For example, no one has listed the articles about the different types of Middle-Earth elves for deletion, just because it would decrease sales of The Silmarillion. No one has even listed them for merge. Also, I really wouldn't consider this fancruft, since these articles are much like the article List of Star Wars creatures, only with more detail. I still hold with keeping, or at least merging into a list. bibliomaniac15 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The World of Kong. Articles are small enough to combined. --Masamage 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per WP:FICT. Delete would be my second option. King Kruft. :-) Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Pascal & Masamage. No reason to break out individual entries from this work into separate articles... and WP:AGF... there is nothing wrong with this nom; I don't agree with outright deletion here, but the nominator explained their reasoning for the nomination.--Isotope23 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete all. This grossly violates both WP:FICT and Writing about fiction. It uses pseudo-scientific, realistic, long-winded writing about some utterly non-notable fictional objects. --Ekjon Lok 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Isotope. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per other editors. Non-notable creatures that don't deserve their own articles. EVula 16:47, 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 delete. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepstealer clothing

Nomination for Deletion First afd was a speedy keep after no discussion due to an admin perception that the nomination was bad faith/inaccurate[5], though this was also disputed by another admin[6]. I basically agree that the first nom may have been by an inexperienced user who cited the wrong policy (WP:SOAP) in their nomination, and since there was no discussion whatsoever, I don't see the need to go through WP:DRV (though I'm open to suggestions otherwise). I am nominating this as a failure of WP:CORP, particularly bearing in mind that the official stance on acceptance criteria for corporate articles has recently hardened. (See "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation). Patrick calls for a "shoot on sight" policy but given the mixup with the first afd, I decided to re-nominate. Initially I thought this company may be a specialist provider of traditional uniforms to Irish sports teams (possibly some notability if that was true), but it seems from the website that they actually just sell the usual range of t-shirts, hoodies and baseball caps for fans. Also, only about 50 google hits. In addition, the article appears to have been created by an employee of the company with a single purpose account Bwithh 02:00, 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 Naconkantari 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time

Completing AfD started by anon, reason from change summary and my talk page: "This article can't possibly provide any useful information without either a) violating copyright or b) descending into non-NPOV fanboyism ("so-and-so is arguably deserving/not") All these Rolling Stone list pages have got to go. They're either stubs for ever or magnets for fanboy indignation. - Maggie --70.48.205.21" (I'm abstaining) Jamoche 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is done, SOME discussion of the all-time best guitarists is useful. Rolling Stone Magazine can be a source, without being the definitive list. But keep some listing of the greats. Tawn 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - We can't keep a listing of "great" guitarists because such a listing will inevitably be POV, whether it follows the essentially rockist agenda of the present article or some other range of criteria. BTLizard 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. The Rolling Stone list is biased from the ground up - I would suggest that the greatest guitarist of the 20th Century was probably Andres Segovia and any list of the supposed greatest guitarists which omits Segovia, Django Reinhardt, John Williams and Julian Bream is of decidedly questionable merit. One of my most vivid memories is hearing John Williams perform in St Albans Abbey - one man and an acoustic guitar in one of the largest cathedral naves in England, without any amplification. The audience was around a thousand people and you could have heard a pin drop, it felt as if there were just the two of us there. A truly breathtaking performance. Guy 12:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks for making me jealous Guy...--Isotope23 13:12, 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. Nufy8 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsors vs Freeloaders

This was nominated for deletion six months ago and kept with no consensus. However, there were some accusations of WP:POINT in that debate. I myself recommended a week keep then, but I've reconsidered since then. Google gives 46 unique hits, some of which still aren't reliable sources, and, aside from a couple of award nomination mentions (none actually won), there isn't much there. The award nomination mentions are well and good, but the problem is that they don't contribute too much to non-trivial third-party coverage (they're just lists). I do realize that CSD A7 has been recently expanded to include web content, and there is very little of notability claims in here as it stands (and any semblance of such is completely unsourced), but I guess that one could somewhat interpret the Red vs. Blue connection as a claim. So, given this and the past AfD and no consensus, I felt that it'd be better to send this to a debate first. — TKD::Talk 02:52, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Pig

We have had vanity articles about people's pet animals. The title might suggest that this is one such but it is actually about the guy's sound system. Does not establish notability. -- RHaworth 02:59, 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. Nufy8 03:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wherdsetgo

Fails WP:NFT; google has literally 0 hits Patstuart 03:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Spencer

I do not think that voicing a character in a computer game is enough for notability abakharev 03:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Shea

A borderline case, but I feel this individual does not meet the criteria in WP:BIO. Perhaps later, but not now. Crystallina 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Since when does contributing to a student journal made you notable? And as for the rest, there are millions of bloggers out there. Yandman 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the influence of the new media grows, so too does that of its stars. This young man seems to be among the more prominent/reputable bloggers, certainly writing for legitimate outlets, and he does seem to have a genuine following. I vote to keep it. ICW10003 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Users sole contribution to Wikipedia
  • Keep. No need to delete this. The student is known in the blogsophere as an important contributor to an important website. I would say he is certainly notable on The Huffington Post - in August the site recorded 2.5 million unique visitors and 34 million page views. His writing has probably reached more readers than a large number of authors on Wikipedia.
    • Comment: IP 140.180.17.70, this is it's only contribution to Wikipedia
  • Delete. This isn't even borderline. The "sole contribution" posts above are sufficiently convincing. Michael Kinyon 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writes for a blog. ergot 16:05, 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 Speedy delete, CSD A7 and office decree on promotional articles. Teke (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Racket

Warning to admins: This AfD is under attack, having been blanked by SPA 72.92.104.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and replaced with the text "All guests are notable if you have even the tinest clue about the broadcasting industry, and there are no shameless plugs on this website. Everything here is accurate and truthful. Retards." --Aaron 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable web content. Not a speedy because of the guests section. Contested prod. MER-C 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do have a clue about the broadcasting industry, (couple well placed friends in the local Entercom-owned stations, plus a dabbling into Internet Radio,) and just because you scored interviews with a handful or two of local DJ's, does not establish notability. I will commend you for one thing, most local DJ's I talk to around here have noted that their managers are starting to consider Internet Radio as competition, and would never sign off on an interview. But I digress... --Roninbk t c e # 01:47, 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 speedily deleted by Naconkantari under CSD G1. MER-C 06:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mittens the Untameable

Absolute stupidity, nuff said. Danny Lilithborne 05:09, 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 speedy delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerealart

Delete: Self-promoting advert with no evidence of meeting WP:CORP.  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  06:49, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZX2C4 Instant Messenger

It looks like 203.184.30.170 wanted this page deleted, but didn't tag it with {{subst:afd}}. Anyway, it's an article about software that fails to assert notability. Delete. MER-C 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Naturally ZX2C4 wants to keep it up, so that is just to be expected. Let us look at the facts of the matter: ZIM is a real product with many, many users. User:THE KING is right.


  • Keep Again, I assert that ZIM is a legitimate enterprise product. The company receives many calls and e-mails per day regarding licencing of the software to major firms. It does not have much Internet presence due to the nature of the product; it is designed for private use in companies, and the public server is only for demos and testing. The article is written as no such advertisement. If the language is written in a non-wiki way, then it needs to be flagged for cleanup, not for deletion. I assure you ZIM is legitimate. All above claims of illegitimacy are based in mere speculation and are completely unfounded.
No assuring us is not the way this works - you need non-notable sources to indicate this is worth an article. As for not reading like an advert - surely you jest? Looking past all of these features which eloquently enhance ease-of-use, the most remarkable feature of ZIM is it's advanced file transfer technology. Where other messengers fail to work with firewalls, are slow because of uncompressed data, or do not integrate with the users' computers well, ZIM excels. --Charlesknight 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrevelant as to whether or not it is written like an advertisement. If it is in advert form, then the article must be cleaned up, not removed. As for credible sources: this project used to be a sourceforge featured project: [9]. Here are SF news archives: [10] and [11]. Here it is written about on a popular gaming forum: [12]. There is an article about it on zoominfo: [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2006
Let's see 1 is a link to sourceforge - anyone can jump a few hoops and get on there - entirely non-notable. The second and third are just sourcefog logs - so what? The third is someone basically saying "hey dude - try this piece of software, me and two mates are trying it!" - big wow. The article listed in the 4th link says This summary was automatically generated using information found on the Internet. and is purely descriptive. --Charlesknight 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 4th link: it shows that there is information on the internet about it if the bot was able to obtain it.
  • Keep ZIM is a real product that is vastly used in the business world. Its web presence is low and this is unfortuanate, but this does not change the fact that it is wide spread. As for sourceforge: look at how long this product has been on sourceforge. One cannot just jump a few hoops to get on sourceforge. One must undergo a large review process. Sorceforge logs are of news releases that sourceforge published. The third one, yes I'll agree, is just a couple of script kiddies using the software, but after all, the internet presense of ZIM is for script kiddies; the wide spread usage of this in the business world is done over the telephone and with real material. User:65.189.32.198 3 October 2006 4:39 PM (EST)
Great, you can list 3 or 4 of the coporations that are currently using this beta product. This is really really straightforward "I heard", "I think" and "I know" do NOT cut it on Wikipedia - Go read this and then you will be aware of what is required. --Charlesknight 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article passes the tests. Charlesknight -- let's keep ego out of this, please. 72.49.43.117 20:45, 2 October 2006
let me get this straight - this is an amazing in-use product "vastly used" in the business world but the designer is asking Do you think it is at all marketable? I'm interested in the opinion of the intelligent tech savy community, not just my mother who tells me it's great. I see.... --Charlesknight 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is A) not a reliable source, B) tells nothing about the actual usage, and C) may very well be an imposter. Please charlesknight, you said above that the forum wasn't reliable. Do not contradict yourself. Stop with your ego and illogical conclusions. 21:28, 2 October 2006 72.49.43.117
Where on the webpage does it say what you have quoted? It is not there.
Well that was not a very bright move - all you have done is indicate that you must be a sock of the user User:ZX2C4. Many thanks for outting yourself. --Charlesknight 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? How is there a correlation between the zx2c4 of wikipedia and of the fourms? What text was changed? Photoshopping is a popular device. Regardless of any correlation that could be met, a logical argument (as the KEEPs present) is logical regardless of bias.
  • Keep Zim is indeed a real product and has a number of users already. Zim was created in the most professional of ways to enhance the online expereince of business users in the midwest. It seems charlesknight is trolling out with logic. 24.29.21.137
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Reality

1) uncommon term in academic literature, 2) resembles existing article Objective reality, 3) from the talk page, it is clear that this article is not being taken seriously by anyone -Shaggorama 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. DELETE. per nom -Shaggorama 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete per nom. Not much to say on this one. Maybe some of the contents can be moved to the articles on altered states of consciousness, Timothy Leary or drug culture? --Francesco Franco 08:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete per nom. It seems an awkward attempt to define Objective reality through Indian mysticism; though apparently informed by drug experiences. No useful content can be appended to redeem it. Readers interested in the subject can read the articles suggested by Fransesco. Rintrah 10:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete a muddle of philosophical ideas with no real theme to tie them together into a coherent article. Nor is it possible that future edits could produce any coherence. An embarrassment. Banno 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Delete Article is disjointed; its descriptions are tepid and uniformative. I do not think there is anything this article can do for the wiki that others don't already do. - Sam 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Delete and redirect to Objective reality. Alba 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Comment. Anyone here actually know enough about Eastern philosophy to be sure that "ultimate reality" isn't an English phrase for some notable Eastern philosophical concept? There's the 25-year-old Ultimate Reality & Meaning journal, an Ultimate Reality bibliography... I'm not seeing any concise definitions, but that's hardly an uncommon issue in philosophy. (Concerned here that no distinction is being made between the quality of this article and the right of a better version of it to exist.) (late sign:) –Outriggr § 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I am not an expert, but I have studied enough Eastern philosophy and religion to know that when the phrase "ultimate reality" is used in these contexts, it can mean only one of a few things which are best covered in other articles on Wikipedia. 1) Ultimate reality can mean the real world which lies transcend and lies beyond the apparent world of the sense. This is covered in hundreds of different articles. 2) UR can be a shorthand for the "meaning of life", as in the first link which you cite. This should be covered in meaning of life. Ultimate reality often means some undisclosed higher plane of existence/heightened state of consciousness achieved through transcendental meditation, the use of drugs. This should obviously be covered in things like satori, enlightenment, consciousness, spirituality, transcendental meditation, etc.. etc. Somehow I do NOT think that Wikipedia is LACKING in such material. Au contraire. --Francesco Franco 08:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. (Ideally, of course, these would all be merged into Transcendental Unmitigated Ultimate Reality III: The Wrath of Khansciousness.) Thanks for responding FF. –Outriggr § 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete -- I'm usually a tie-dyed inclusionist, but this is utterly pointless. I have nothing new to add on the reasons, but add my vote. --Christofurio 14:16, 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 delete a7 (web). NawlinWiki 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mohawk Comics

Page previously deleted (presumably via Prod) with title Mr. Mohawk. Now recreated with this title, so considered a contested prod. Title of comic plus Morelli (i.e. the author) gives 5 distinct Google hits, which is extremely low for a webcomic Fram 08:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Born Lords of the English Realm

I am not sure whether this is a simple hoax, or what. Certainly Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland wasn't in any position to be killed in a duel with "Lord Richard Brown" in 1793 as he had died in 1765. William IV wasn't king in 1793, George III was. I'm not sure whether WP:NFT or WP:NOR applies here, but the article is not verifiable. I presume that the last sentence, about the long-lost Australian heirs, explains why this was written. Anyway, delete seems to be the answer to the problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:53, 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 speedy delete. -- Steel 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle The Tanuki/Insanity 24/7

Contested WP:PROD for webcomic with no signs of notability per WP:WEB (no reliable independent sources given). Delete. Kusma (討論) 08:56, 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 Transwiki Naconkantari 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life series storyline

A textbook case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7. This is a novelization of the various Half-Life games. It has no hope of being sourced to anything but observation of the games themselves (the linked refs are to a HL2 fansite), and the entire article is redundant to the plot summaries in the articles themselves.

We're not here to retell stories in less-compelling form; Valve has some games they'd like to sell you if you want to know what happens in the Half-Life series. Instead, Wikipedia has plot summaries to support encyclopedic overview of the fictional works as artefacts in the real world, and this article makes no effort whatsoever to do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does every fact in every article need to be sourced? No, of course not. The rigidity implied by your statement of non-negotiability is troubling, because it seems to imply that everything needs complete sources, which is rather silly. The rule of common sense applies. For example, you don't need to find a source to say that the White House is well, White. In this case, you can verify any of the content directly by playing the game. If you don't like that, for whatever reason, though it sounds silly to me, you can easily go over to Gamefaqs and read any number of the Half-life FAQs there. Many of them are quite descriptive as to the Story line. If that's not enough for you, then why don't you identify some of the sections which you find troubling on the article's talk page, we'll see if some sources can be found to establish them. FrozenPurpleCube 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article combines of several Half-Life stories. The majority of the article is encyclopedic, except for some parts. Instead, a cleanup tag should be put, and not deletion. This article definitely does not meet Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It was split as it will take too much space in the main article. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it is not properly sourced, source it! If it needs cleaning up, clean it up! None of these are grounds for deletion. With regard to the ever-ambiguous call to not an indiscriminate collection of information, I would like to remind everyone that we are dealing here with one of the most ground-breaking games ever, which certainly means it deserves more than one single article to deal with everything. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Groundbreaking or not (and I happen to love the game), storylines for games are not suitable article material. No strong opposition to a transwiki, but Wikipedia is not the place for this article.--Isotope23 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you proposing deleting the story-line content from the individual Half-life games articles? That seems to follow from your comment. FrozenPurpleCube 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing any changes to the exising game articles. My personal opinion is that the level of detail in the storylines in many of those articles is excessive... but that is just my opinion. Trust me, I have no interest in going to each of these individual articles and fighting to edit those sections down. I don't agree however with having a separate storyline article just to have redundant information all in one place. I think Alba's suggestion below is a rather good idea if Wikibooks will have this.--Isotope23 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would agree with you, except for one very big thing. The Half-life series has a unified, on-going storyline, as such, it is important to cover that issue. At the least, the information in this article should be merged, however pruned it may need to be to Half-life series. Since you agree that the information itself belongs in the individual articles, I don't see how you can argue that having it in one single place is a bad idea. Sure, it's redudant, but redundancy is often a good thing. How else would you do it? FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained how I would do it above... I just simply disagree with a series storyline article. Wikipedia is not the place to cover this.--Isotope23 00:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SharpInstall

Non notable software. Sharpinstall gets 31 distinct Google hits. Claims to fame are unverified (sharpinstall + wix gives three pages, including WIkipedia and a letter by the creator of sharpinstall). Fails WP:V for the claims, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP for the product. Fram 08:59, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three boys (opera)

No merit. When this article is deleted, this one needs to be deleted as well: THE THREE BOYS (noredirect). Michael Bednarek 09:59, 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 Speedy delete. Robdurbar 10:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Business and International Studies

This is little more than an advertisement for a self-styled "University". Final paragraph reads as if it comes from a brochure and is a good description of the business community in Geneva, but non-enlightening for a university. The official web site includes statements from former students, of a university that opened this year! Emeraude 09:16, 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 SOMEWHAT SPEEDY KEEP (without prejudice against merging). We may not need a half-dozen lists, but it seems the best plan may be to merge or to resubmit a single problematic list for individual review. Nothing's getting deleted here, that much is obvious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by stage

Very crufty. I'm fine with having one list of Pokemon, but do we really need six? After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also nominating:

In fact, the only major difference between most of these lists is that the pokemon are organized differently. --TBCTaLk?!? 09:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some or reorganize, the articles themselves are worthwhile, I think we should merge all of them Pokédex ones, to list each Pokémon and all their dex numbers into one, while List of Pokémon by stage to kept as it is, since it's the only thing that shows all the evolutionary lines of the Pokémon, something none of the other articles do. Highway Daytrippers 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
№ EN Name JP Name Romanization Trademarked Rōmaji Johto № Hoenn № Shinou №
041 Zubat ズバット Zubatto Zubat 37 63 28
The by Stage list is being discussed on its talk page as not making a whole lot of sense due to lack of sources. DanPMK 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your proposal on merging the lists, though perhaps the Names and National lists could be merged into the table as well.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the numerical lists along the lines proposed by DanPMK above. The numerous lists are cumbersome, and, since not all pokemon appear on all lists, having multiple lists actually makes things harder to use: those unfamiliar with the series will assume that each list contains all pokemon, and will consequently be confused when they find a given species missing from a list.
    Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia aimed at non-specialists, not a specialist reference work aimed at pokemon experts! We should present things in the format that is most generally useful, and in this case I believe that will involve consolidating the information so that people need only look in one place to get all the details. — Haeleth Talk 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The Hybrid 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Haeleth. -Jeske (SHOUT!) 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems sort of pointless to merge them like DanPMK proposed. The number of N/As or blank spaces would look pretty messy. I would say to delete all of them except for national because people can just look at the sigle pages or just keep all of them. Nemu 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all needed. They can't be merged as they are too long. Aslo they are not the same list they are the lists based on each generation. National is the only one that is compleate becuse it is the only one that has them all. NOTHING SHOULD CHANGE!!! (Translation KEEP!) Also, unless you are very versed on pokemon (AKA played more than one game) You should not be voteing as you don't know what you are talking about Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stage article, Merge Number and Name articles per DanPMK; I would suggest merging them into an article with a title like "List of Pokémon by number" or into the National article. Also, I would like to comment that I was the one who separated these lists in the first place. The reason was that with all these lists - listed seperately, mind you, with a section for National and a section for Jhoto and so forth - made a gigantic and rather cumbersome article. Putting everything on a table and arranging them by either National number or alphabetically would solve that problem rather nicely. --Sparky Lurkdragon 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addemendum: In my haste to explain myself, I forgot my rationale for keeping the Stage list. Well, while the various number lists just present the Pokemon reordered by whatever strange whims the designers had in the different generations (and Jhoto doesn't even have numbers, per se), Stage presents an entirely different set of information, and personally I like seeing the different evolutionary families arranged in an easy-to-see manner. I wouldn't be crushed if the final decision was to add a 'Stage' column to DanPMK's table, but I'd prefer the Stage list to stand on its own. --Sparky Lurkdragon 10:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible merge, if not completely Delete I urge the closing administrator to seriously take into account WP:NOT and enact measures to merge of this stuff into one, or at most, two lists hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are six different ways to organise Pokémon into a list; six different lists is precisely the right way to do that until such time when technical measures make it possible to dynamically generate lists of this nature by way of metadata. I too strongly encourage the closing adminstrator to take into account WP:NOT, specifically noting how not one person has demonstrated in any reasonable way how these lists are anything but beneficial.--SB | T 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists on any subject can be organized in hundreds of different ways, but that doesn't mean we should have hundreds of seperate lists because of it. After all, please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DanPMK. This person's got the right idea. The pokemon would come, most importantly, in National Dex number, while still keeping their other dex numbers. Alphabetical order is completely useless; that was the one that should have been nominated, not National Dex order. The only list left is the by stage. That can be merged onto the Pokémon evolution page, possibly. It can replace the external links on that page (both of which are already obsolete). It is, after all, a chart relating directly to Pokémon evolution. You Can't See Me! 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on what I wrote, it doesn't seem very clear. What I mean is to merge the Dex-ordered articles together in DanPMK's neat little table, merge the Stage list with Pokémon evolution, and delete the Names list altogether, even though List of Pokémon by name was not nominated for deletion (I still don't see why National Dex, the most commonly used pokemon order, was nominated, but not alphabetical order, which is rarely used with pokemon). Hopefully that was less vague. You Can't See Me! 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2: I didn't mean to strikethrough that... You Can't See Me! 05:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Progress on the table: Johto and Hoenn numbers done: User:DanPMK/dex DanPMK 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't seem that useful. It seems much too jumbled and the numbers by themselves are pretty pointless. I think it would just be better to leave the other numbers out of the National Dex, and just delete the other Dex pages. If someone wants a number, they can just look at the single Pokémon articles.Nemu 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can still be useful. Just because it will end up ordered only one way doesn't mean that one should ignore the other ways it can be ordered. You Can't See Me! 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it'll just cause clutter to me. Take a look at DanPMK's test page. It looks really squished and untidy. If the other pages are deleted, the information just ends up being pointless. If we're going to keep the numbers, we might as well add the types or something.
Indeed, it looks rather clumsy and confusing. The internal Hoenn numbers are there so there won't be blank spaces, but if we add Shinou numbers, there WILL be blanks, since it doesn't have internal Shinou numbers past 151. Adding the types would mean we would have to keep the page one vertical column, or else it would be too wide. This would make it far too long. As of now, the page is very large. DanPMK 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adding the types comment was to show how pointless the numbers are. Alone, they really aren't that important, so if we're going to remove those lists, I think the numbers should just be on the single pages. And just think how ugly it'll look with all of the blank spaces. Nemu 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, failing that, Keep. Listing Pokémon in order they're listed in various games is a reasonable excuse to set up a list in my opinion. Not sure if they warrant their own articles even if it means there'll be a huge article. But I prefer the huge article, or even keeping them as separate articles, to no article at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:52, 5 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 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Fonseca

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. 743 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 09:43, 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 all, and I see I have some work cut out for me. --- Deville (Talk) 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complexxon

Incomprehensible, cross-linked spamming related to anti-oil corporation agenda. Looks like it fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VANITY and WP:OR.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just cross-links with the same basic content:

All articles created by User:S.Tychon, or one of five anonymous IPs: User:85.146.184.157, User:62.58.132.178, User:195.169.78.207, User:195.169.78.205 and User:137.120.3.224, who seem to be the same user. --DeLarge 10:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is! (Stephan Tychon@dr.com ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) 16:25, October 2, 2006
— 217.166.216.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agreed on all counts and would add WP:BALLS, WP:NONSENSE, WP:ATK, WP:ADVERT (although I accept that they are not all accepted grounds for deletion!)
If I were being generous, I might suggest that the author is a non-English speaker and the article may have important points hidden in there somewhere if they can only be deciphered. These points could find a potential home on the Exxon page. However, given the author's vandalism in spreading gibberish throughout numerous articles to promote his POV, I'm not inclined to be generous. GDallimore 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -------------------------------------------------
  • Incomprehensible vandalism?
  • Complete bollocks?
  • Patent nonsense?
  • Tenuous connection to reality?
  • Spurious claims?
  • Widely disputed?
  • A walled garden?
  • isparaging a subject?
  • Self-contained nest of bullshit?
  • Emerging theory?
  • Spreading gibberish?
  • POV?
Who are you to judge without explaining and what you know that gives you the privilege to insult people?
Yes I am a Dutch, non-English speaker. What is your problem here?
Decision of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market not a source of legitimate and reputable authority? See Tychon v. Dell on [14]
Same for the key-document "La transformation de L'industrie du Gaz aux Pays-Bas" of 1964 under Gasgate 1963: "La Condition Americaine"?. Do you speak your languages at all? You think american 'civilization' is no economic fundamentalism? Dream on!
WHAT YOU KNOW?
Shouldn't you rather have respect for a single individual disclosing classified information based on material previously published by a ::reliable source demonstrating this is not mere original sourcing research/
Wouldn't you rather be helpful and ask good questions for Christ sake?
Delarge, shouldn't you stay with cars?
— 217.166.216.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Re-action: The signing-procedure seems to be to complexx too for me where I considered 'signing' with my full name would do the job: Stephan Tychon, Maastricht, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Tychon@dr.com Please let me know if you need more information or go to www.xxell.com [15]
The spreading gibberish comment was as a consequence of your vandalism to the Software patent debate article (which is fragile and messy enough as it is) and the Software patents under United Kingdom patent law article (which I have personally spent a lot of time working on). You added to those articles, which have no clear connection with your cause, prominent discussions of "implicit patents", which is a completely meaningless phrase, and links to your website.
Your trademark case with OHIM against Exxon may well be valid, but does not give you the right to vandalise other pages (particularly patent pages - patents and trademarks are separate and distinct forms of Intellectual property). Also, the fact that you have a trademark victory aganist Exxon does not in any way validate your cause.
I'm still not inclined to be generous and, since I didn't officially vote before:
  • I would like to invite you to better study content of 'Casus Europae' (Tychon v. Dell) and state proper citations:
  • I do not claim nor enjoy a trademark victory against Exxon.
  • My European Opposition against registration of Dell's Community Trade Mark (CTM)was succesful and is fully documented on xxell.com [16], notwithstanding Dell's appeal and strategic countering before Dutch courts.
  • Casus Europa clearly defines implementing of TM-supported firmware computer programs as they link mental processes (like instant 'branding' of this new method of 'implicit patenting') to software programs. Compare the Macrossan Patent-case where the assembly-function of computer programs is discussed.
  • The .E trademark is uniquely self-patenting because there is no way around this business-method other than copying it with less distinctive internet icons.
  • I persist in my oppinion that Dell and Exxon are imposing gibberish and a global threat to fair and independent research, innovation, progress, real change and development and thus being the global cause and main force behind the structural and startegic complexxon of enduring error sustained by information-terror where energy-fundamentals determine foreign affairs and international diplomacy endangering state-sovereignty usually misperceived and dubbed as state-failures: the global P3-tangle of incorporated governance guided by the primacy of economic fundamentalism.
  • The root cause of the information war (Silent War) cannot even be silenced by Wikipedians, but you are all free to try.
  • I wish you good luck in persuing to unveil the truth and sustain the global battle against mingled corporate arrogance and public ignorance.

Signed: Stephan Tychon, Maastricht, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Gloabl energy dissident. (Tychon@dr.com)

Mr Tychon
I am very sorry that you feel so put upon, and I wanted to write this final comment to try to explain to you why I have been giving such negative feedback. I would reassure you that I carefully read all of your articles and your website before putting forward my vote for deletion. The reason for my voting to delete your articles is not because I do not agree with your point of view, or because I do not think you are correct in your point of view, but because it simply is not possible to understand what you are trying to say. I am afraid that your command of the English language does not appear to be good enough to get your points across and I can see no possibilty of improving the situation.
My first comment, noting that you may not be an English speaker, was intended to be supportive. The fact that English is not your first language should be taken into account and extra effort put into trying to understand what you want to say. I have made that extra effort and still do not understand you. If I may make a friendly suggestion, why not create articles on the Dutch Wiki (I've run a seach under Complexxon, Tychon and xxell and can find nothing), so that you are writing in your own language. When you have a stable and accepted article, I'm sure there would be an opportunity to have it translated into English by someone with a better command of the language.
I am sorry for my error in saying that you had a victory over Exxon, rather than saying that it was a victory over Dell. This was an honest mistake. I have now reviewed the complete decisions in the Tychon V Dell case and the subsequent appeal. As a registered (but non-practicing) European Trade Mark Attorney I am sorry to have to tell you that you clearly do not have a full grasp of intellectual property law and are not qualified to comment on it. For example, I note that OHIM's decision was based entirely on their own reasoning and that very little you had to say was taken into account. Your submissions that Dell had stolen your trademark and had bad advertising practices were completely ignored. Your submissions that your own trademark had achieved recognition were rejected. OHIM rejected Dell's trademark for some of the goods and services under which they had requested it to be registered, giving you only a partial victory. The subsequent appeal (filed by you) was found to be inadmissible because you failed to pay an appeal fee. Apparently, you said that you should not be required to pay an appeal fee. I am afraid that that strikes me as a very arrogant submission to make and I am not surprised that your appeal was thrown out.
In any event, as I mentioned before, your partial victory over Dell only shows that you have previously registered a trade mark that was similar to the trade mark that Dell wished to register. It does not support your point of view expressed in any of the articles that are proposed for deletion.
Finally, as a registered (and practicing) European Patent Attorney from the UK, I can say with utter certainty that there is no such thing as an "implicit patent". [17] There is also no such thing as a global patent. The Macrossan decision in the UK does not support the patenting of computer-implemented mental processes, does not have global importance and the appeal filed by Mr Macrossan has not yet been judged on. A trademark does not give you patent rights and is not a "business method". Having run a search on [ep.espacenet.org], I find that you do not appear to have any granted or pending patents. Therefore, someone can provide exactly the same services as you so long as they use a different trade mark. Your comments on software patents are therefore completely misguided. They also do not appear to have any relevance to the articles that have been proposed for deletion.
In summary, having carefully reviewed all of the materials made available to me, I can make no sense and can see no merit in any of your articles and maintain my vote to have them deleted.
Mr G Dallimore MPhys (Oxon) EPA ETMA RPA CPA, Reading, UK GDallimore 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>Comments moved to talk page</snip>. Further conversations should be addressed there. That may halt the edit count on this page (38 from one named account and two related anonymous IP blocks in the last 48 hours). --DeLarge 13:33, 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 Speedily deleted by NawlinWiki (a7) - Yomanganitalk 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hookers on stilts

Non-notable blog. Nehwyn 10:37, 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. DS 14:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John fox mp

A blatant hoax article. No such MP, nor such a constituency. Really should be a speedy candidate but there are no criteria that fit. David | Talk 10:37, 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7 vanity; no notability shown in article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICEshop

Non-notable commercial website. Nehwyn 10:39, 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. DS 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Make Poverty History and Fair Trade

Part of a sequence of hoax articles and additions by User:Johnfox2007. There is no such cabinet post, see PM's list, and there is no such MP as John Fox, see the list accessible from here. No google hits for "Minister for Make Poverty History and Fair Trade" Mr Stephen 10:39, 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. Petros471 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Lee (porn star)

Delete. I think this fails WP:BIO. Please note; I am not the author, though it appears this way. I split thsi article off Pinky Lee (same name different act!) after the originator had placed it there as well as the orginal guy. I will be notifing the original author of this AfD Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 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 Merge to Scandal'us - Yomanganitalk 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Jaber

Non-notable performer. This article reads like an advertisment for Tamara. I feel it would be more appropriate to merge elements of this article with the Scandal'Us page Goremay 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish Keep I disagree with deletion. I think it's borderline, but she does fit into "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" as well as having 9,830 hits on google. I do agree with the comments made on the standard of the article, but perhaps it could be tagged with NPOV or marked for a clean up. --Jirrupin 21:40, 4 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, Keitei (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but it needs to be cut down a lot. She's done absolutely nothing of note - Sandiland's conflict of interest is the most notable part of the article. -al 01:49, 12 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. feydey 10:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avesthagen

Not notable, per WP:CORP. Prodded once and tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 11:22, 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 speedy delete as systematic hoax vandalism incited by Colbert that we have already deleted several times before. See also Briefsism (AfD discussion) (and again). Uncle G 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cult of Briefsism

This is possibly a non-notable group that assertability isn't noted, I'm not sure if this is even encyclopedic despite the Stephen Colbert reference. This is submitted for AFD anyway due to notability concerns. Vel ZAMAN 11:28, 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 redirect to mistress (lover).--SB | T 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept woman

Previous speedy nomination as "empty" and "dicdef". Doesn't quite meet speedy criteria (see talk page). Converting to AFD for community consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mistress (lover) would seem to make more sense. -- Whpq 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef which could never be expanded. I disagree with the redirect idea, as a "kept woman" is not necessarily a "mistress". It would make just as much sense to redirect it to wife, which I also think is a bad idea. -- Kicking222 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. Already at wiktionary. Yomanganitalk 12:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, dicdef. PJM 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely a dicdef and nothing more. Emeraude 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whpq is right. According to Martin Montgomery (1995-12-01). An Introduction to Language and Society. United Kingdom: Routledge. p. 230. ISBN 0415072387., "mistress" and "kept woman" are now largely synonymous. There's plenty to say on the subject, too. According to Philippa Levine (2003-07-04). Prostitution, Race and Politics. United Kingdom: Routledge. p. 301. ISBN 0415944465., for example, the Commissioner of Police in Bombay was once instructed not to register kept women as prostitutes.

    Since the further reading is useful, merge these duplicate articles. Uncle G 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per Uncle G Bwithh 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mistress (lover) and delete per Uncle G. In my experience, "merge" closings end up never been acted upon, and thus are no different than "keep"s. --Aaron 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the dicdef already exists at Wiktionary, merge per Uncle G and redirect and delete per Aaron. Alba 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G --dannycas 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as-is is POV inherently, in that it assumes this is an appropriate title for this phenomenon/category of person. To make it NPOV would be to rewrite it about the term "kept woman", but then this would be a dicdef and would also be inappropriate. Retitling it to a neutral title would require moving it to "Mistress". Thus, delete and redirect to Mistress (lover) is the best course. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Delete and create redirect to Mistress (lover). Nothing to merge. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and redirect "Kept woman" to Mistress (lover), as above. Mistress (lover) seems to be a good article and I don't see anything in "Kept woman" that is worth merging. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mistress (lover) although there are "kept" people (i.e. voluntarily taken care of by others) who are not lovers. That concept needs to be documented, but not necessarily via such a loaded term. Samatva 21:30, 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 Speedy delete a1, a3, no content. NawlinWiki 16:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollyoaks: Let loose episodes

Incomplete and hasn't been touched for two months Quentin X 11:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. MER-C 13:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information (Half-Life 2 mod)

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, or WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is not sourced according to the reliable sources criteria (and before you say that's just a guideline, WP:V, which is policy, uses the text); to be truly sourced, the sources have to be inline, but even so, there are only primary sources, which do not match WP:RS or WP:V. Gamespot only offers a download and is therefore not a source (it would count as a web directory in this circumstance. If it actually wrote an article on this mod, that would be different). An article can fail WP:V and be deleted that way if there's no indication that it can meet WP:V. Too many articles on this site already lack sourcing, let's not create more. ColourBurst 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Few mods are notable, and this doesn't appear to be one of them... hmmm, this makes me feel like playing some Thievery UT... GarrettTalk 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 08:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm on the mod team, and all this information is correct. I'm the source, there just isn't a link I can post to that effect. This mod is going places, already popular on certain boards, give it a month or two and I expect it to become very popular indeed with the next release. Please save the article until that time.LaCabra 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that Wikipedia tends to believe more in "first be famous, then have you get an article" kind of thing. For example, I opposed inclusion of Black Mesa, because the thing isn't even out yet, but they have game mag mentions, ModDB awards, alleged commendations from Valve etcetera; who am I to argue against that? People will probably remember them even if it turns out to be vapourware. If Missing Information can't provide such mentions, then I'm afraid we can't really establish the notability. "Certain boards" probably won't help. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mod only has "public test" version out. Every mod that hits 1.0 release probably deserves an article, but beta-stage stuff is extremely debatable, especially if it has not gotten media attention. Until then, time for a blurb in "List of unreleased HL2 mods" or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A mod of this magnitude that even has been in a magazine and has had a release deserves an article.Gurluas 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Gurluas[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Arda

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, or WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Well, it only requires sourcing" ignores the fact that oftentimes sourcing is asked for and people never give them until the article is in danger of deletion (and sometimes never give them at all, because there aren't any). But in any case, unless Planet Annihilation wrote an review of this mod, it hasn't said anything about the mod, it just gave a link for download. That's not sourcing - all of the information from the article still came from the author's own keyboard. ColourBurst 00:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although still do not think that lack of sourcing is a reason for deletion (if no sources exist at all, that can be reason for deletion of course). I had a closer look and admit that I was not able to find any information in secondary sources for this game. That means indeed that sourcing will be very difficult, therefore I striked my vote for this AfD. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement, nn game mod. Recury 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources. No idea what "respectable gamesites" Reinoutr is referring to - he just seems to be copying/pasting all his AFD responses... Wickethewok 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh please, of course it is partly copy/pasted, like are all these nominations. The nominations don't even try to give reasoning for specific articles, just a few calls to a couple of wiki-talk abbreviations. If you would have looked more careful, you would have noticed I actually adjusted my votes for each AfD I voted on (which certainly is not every game-related AfD, just the ones I happened to stumble upon and that have my interest), to fit that particular AfD. And to answer your question: planet annihilation (although no longer updated) is part of Gamespy [20]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources, nothing to set it apart from the thousands of other game mods out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karn + mahabharat

The article discusses Karna, a character in the Mahabharata. The article on Karna already exists in a much better form. Also there is no need to redirect as the name of this article is not as per manual of style.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:19, 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 speedy delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guyver Project

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Amir E. Aharoni 12:21, 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apps Communications

Contested prod. Reason for prod was "No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." MER-C 12:45, 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, transwikied to Wiktionary. --Keitei (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English prefixes

This list comprises information on etymology, meaning and usage, and belongs better in a dictionary. I propose a transwiki merge into wiktionary:Appendix:Prefixes:English --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave It more information is better than less information. Zbrock 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although my vote is destined to fail, I find this non-offensive and informative, as well as encyclopedic. If this was an article on one prefix, I would probably agree with you; a centralized list is useful and doesn't create clutter, either. Dekimasu 14:50, 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. Petros471 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freshdeuce

Non-notable art project, tagged for importance since August. No independent sources about its significance - if any. Mereda 13:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenga (game)

non-notable, promotional Original research, not yet notable. Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly my description was too harsh. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 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 without prejudice towards recreation, provided the article is in a much better state. The article, as it stands, is completely beyond repair. I encourage those calling for this article to be kept and rewritten to do some research and write a new article on this topic.--SB | T 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh diet

There are some concerns that this article might be a cut-and-paste of copyrighted content, see [21]. Additionally, the article seems to be a bit beyond the capabilities of Wiki cleanup. It is at best an essay or opinion piece with spiritual writings. Delete HappyCamper 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not cut and paste but basically quotations of authors, writers, the Sikh Holy texts and others. There were some opinions that were present, but I have deleted them to create a narrative that complies with the NPOV priciples. Please Re-Read before deletion. --Sikh-history 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank as it does seem this article is not encyclopedia itself, however, since dietary requirements as part of a religion are acceptable in themselves (see Kashut), and I assume that Sikhism has something similar otherwise this article wouldn't exist, so it should have something in Wikipedia. Thus I can't support deletion without the intent to recreate it. Sikh-history I don't think you understand the problem with your article. You may wish to check the Kashut article for a better model. FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My word, what a managerie of banner boxes this article has! My word, what a awful article that follows them, too! More of an essay/opinion-piece than an encylopedia article. Might be possible to clean it up, but I certainly don't envy whoever takes it on. It would probably be better to start from scratch. See Kashrut for a much better article about religious dietary laws. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Well this is an interesting case. I'm not 100% set on deletion because AfD is not here to take care of content issues, but this is one case where I think the article is so poorly done that completely wiping it out and starting from scratch wouldn't be such a bad idea. Of course if someone wants to do a total (sourced) rewrite before the AfD is complete I'd happily change my opinion to keep. On an unrelated note, it appears the originator is a role account (per the message on the userpage) and should probably be dealt with as well.--Isotope23 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an important issue for Sikhs and for others. To understand dietary habits of Sikhs (and of other religions) is of significance to life and the importance of diet cannot be denied. Diet plays an key role in the lives of all and it is a matter relating to an important religion of the world. Don't you think that the world would be interested to know about the dietary habits of the Sikhs? We have similar dietary articles for Christianty, Buddhism, etc. and so I think if this article is deleted then in fairness those others should also be deleted.
    The article has been vandalised by User:sikh-history who has a set agenda - See his contributions which all only relate to a one-set-POV. He has since 23 September been changing various articles to his POV in relation to diet and Sikhism. He is deliberately changing this article and other so that they are deleted from the database so that this matter is not brought to the attention of the world as this suits his view.
    I suggest that the article is reverted to the version that I created. --Hari Singh 03:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete IF Hari Singh insists only on his POV. He is very quick to point the finger at Christians and lable people vandals, when his own point of view is challenged. Sikh scholars agree that meat eating is not an issue within Sikhism, yet Hari Singh keeps on insisting that it is. The article itself has been amended to reflect the views of scholars on this subject yet HariSingh through weasal words insists that his POV be maintained. We are strong supporters of sikh history (warts and all). What we are not in support of is religious fanaticism of users like Hari Singh. We will continue to work with the admins of this site (unlike Harisingh), and strongly support the wikipedia neutral point of view stance. For every Ying there is a Yang. For every action there is a reaction. Keep up the good work and keep fanatics like Hari Singh in check. There is an entire article based on this religious fanatics antics, see http://www.sikh-history.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002038. We are strongly against the srticle being reverted back to Hari Singh's original. --Sikh-history 10:09, 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. W.marsh 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sielc

Fails WP:CORP. ProD removed without real improvements. Article was created together with some links, which gave the impression of a Spam effort .Other chromatography companies with articles get a lot more results on Google and so on, indicating that the relative absence of Sielc is not caused by working in a specialized field, but by being only a minor player (for Wikipedia standards, that is). Fram 14:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's powers in Smallville

Does not meet WP:Notability, discussion started HERE Bignole 14:51, 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 keep. Punkmorten 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Hoshino

Does not meet WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 15:33, 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 wasarticle was speedily deleted by Tawker to allow original article to be moved back. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakini

This article is completely composed of bogus original research. Dakini is an important concept in Tibetan Buddhism, the author of this original research article has moved a properly researched (though not correctly cited) article to Dakini(Buddhism) to make way for this new age tripe. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Dakini(Buddhism) back into Dakini. Dakini as it exists right now is unsourced and the fact that there are 2 versions of this article would appear to be a due to content conflict between 2 individuals. AfD is not the solution here & there only needs to be one Dakini article. WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF are what is called for here.--Isotope23 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content of the article put up for deletion has no basis in fact. It is completely unsupportable. Also, this is not a dispute between two individuals. The original Dakini article which was moved to Dakini(Buddhism) is the result of editing by multiple editors over several years. It was unilaterally moved and replaced by complete rubbish which is completely made-up and unrelated to any scholarly study of the concept. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those last two paragraphs on dakinis in Tibetan tantric practice are (I think) accurate, if unsourced (though I think they come from well-regarded books on Tibetan Buddhism by Reginald Ray). I recommend they be preserved in any merge, perhaps with a request for citations. — Sandover 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment exactly. A merge does not necessarily denote that the entirety fo both articles needs to exist in one merged article. What can be sourced from the current Dakini should be retained. What cannot be sourced should be removed from the article as unverified. From the looks of it Dakini(Buddhism) is well sourced and the info there should be incorporated back into the Dakini with a redirect from Dakini(Buddhism) to Dakini. The point is that all of this effort could be boldly done without an AfD; This is a content issue and there is nothing here that needs to be deleted. If there is a problem with this because specific editors don't agree with this course of action or are reverting changes without discussion than this is a situation that needs to be dealt with through a Request for Comment or Mediation. Bottom line, there is really no reason for an AfD here.--Isotope23 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make room to move the original article back. A.J.A. 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, are you saying I should simply speedy this? So the original article can be moved back? Because the suggested material to be merged was actually taken from the original article and is already in it. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you can't speedy it, there is no speedy reason that covers this, but I suggest going to the Admin noticeboard and requesting that an admin undo the move that was done without any discussion. I understand why you AfD'd this now... I forgot about the History.--Isotope23 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under G6? You could try it. I'm not sure this qualified as non-controversial, but you could tag it as such and see if an admin will fix it as a housekeeping move. I'd still explain the situation on AN/I so the admin understands why it is tagged CSD.--Isotope23 20:21, 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 keep.. — CharlotteWebb 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

711 (Quality Comics)

Non-notable super-hero. Pkomano 16:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy metal

Non notable term, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. IronChris | (talk) 16:07, 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. - Bobet 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linderdaum Engine

Delete. Non-notable. (History: Proded by User:Salad Days on Sept 25: "No notability offered, no games appear to use this "engine". Removed by User:80.152.5.244 without comment. Salad Days tried to reprod it for the same reason, but User:Petri Krohn removed this as you can't readd a prod.) --Karnesky 16:09, 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 no consensus. I admit that this is borderline, and that the original article was primarily intended for self-promotion. However, it has since been rewritten, and as such the arguments from the original AFD, for the most part, do not apply. By extension, a comment made prior to said rewrite is used as the primary basis for deletion, and it is equally inapplicable.--SB | T 02:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric D. Snider

This article was originally deleted through this AfD. A DRV consensus decided to overturn the deletion and relist for new consideration. While everyone admired the thoroughness and thoughtful of the previous AfD's closer, consensus held that WP:SPAs had unduly influenced the debate, and that the course of discussion might have changed near the end of the debate. Please consult both the previous AfD and the DRV before commenting here. This debate will be semiprotected to curb spamming. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral pending Alanyst's rewrite. --Aaron 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Voting below after Alanyst's rewrite.[reply]

Not every item in the news media is encyclopedically notable. Much material even from well known mainstream news sources is not encyclopedically notable. The Dr. Demento reference is unsourced and may well be a trivial mention. The significance of even a substantial mention on that show may also be contested Bwithh 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not every author is encyclopedically notable. Take a look at 25 cent bargain bin at the discount bookstore next time you pass one. Bwithh 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saw some Shakespeare in there last time I looked.
But that's a very subjective (hence POV) interpretation of notability. I think our general policy is to trust publishers to decide what's worth publishing and what's not, which makes it more objective. Having multiple published books makes someone notable by definition. Period. I don't know what ruler you would use to determine who is a "minor writer." At a minimum, his books sold very well regionally, and he was very well-known locally. --NThurston 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. --Bill.matthews 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Distinctly minor writer who got his not-even-fifteen-minutes of fame by being interviewed briefly on public radio. Meh (and I speak as a regular listener of On The Media). --Calton | Talk 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The re-write addresses very well the "self-promotion" problem. The other major issue raised is notability. By all objective measures, his published work - long-running newspaper column and several published books, meet the usual notability standard for authors. Like him or not, he's notable. --NThurston 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyse (talk • contribs) 19:39, October 3, 2006
  • Delete. Despite Alanyst's rewrite, I'm afraid I'm still not convinced of his notability. The article still has some WP:V issues as well. --Aaron 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has enough aspects of notability for different reasons to, in my mind, amount to being notable despite the fact that no individual source of notability meets WP:BIO. (I discount the Dr. Demento bit, as unsourced, but if reliably and independently sourced that would be a clear keep per WP:MUSIC all by itself.) GRBerry 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing for the Dr. Demento information is on a student's personal account on Indiana University's computers. Not a primary source. One of his books does come up on Amazon.com, but is not in stock and appears to never have been, given the lack of information. Amazon lists the publisher as BYU, his former university. Do regional-interest books published by universities establish notability? Vic sinclair 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clicking on the Playlists link from www.drdemento.com takes you to the archive at the Indiana University page. This is part of the official page. I had to verify that fact myself, as it looked funny to me too. --Roninbk t c e # 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry's comments and Alanyst's rewrite. The Paramount banning was certainly newsworthy and got nationwide coverage. Agne 07:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't believe he meets the notability standard. Eusebeus 15:30, 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 keep, without prejiduce to any further modifications. Creating an article on the series as opposed to having individual articles on each game is an editorial decision, and outside the scope of this AFD.--SB | T 02:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Goes to Cybertown

The article does not make a claim as to the notability of the subject. It is also linkless. Vectro 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or create an article on the "Gus" series and merge into that. A quick Googling shows this to be pretty notable by kids' software standards, including such accolades as being selected for the "1994 International Summer Consumer Electronics Innovations '94 Software Showcase". Hurrah. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you cite a source for that claim, and can you show us that winning the award is an important achievement in the software world? Keep in mind that just because it won a minor award does not make it notable. Hundreds of works of all kinds win awards yearly, but not all of them are worth making articles for. A game that won Best Shooter of E3? Notable for sure. A game that the Anytown, USA Librarian's Award for Teaching Addition Pretty Well? Not so much. Also, delete, not-notable. ♠PMC♠ 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source is this, which is a cache of the company's press page. The Innovations awards are part of the Consumer Electronics Show which absolutely IS a big deal. For what it's worth, the Innovations are still given out... a list of 2006 honorees is here and includes big names like GE, Kodak, Samsung, and Philips. It's absolutely not some insignificant regional award by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article on the series, rename as apropriate and don't create individual articles on the sequels. Thryduulf 15:18, 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 no consensus. There are good arguments both ways here — on the one hand, the band fails our usual standards for inclusion. However, there is evidence of significance that would nullify those concerns. As such, there is no consensus that this article should be deleted.--SB | T 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaytanhousuja

Apparently non-notable Finnish band. No record deal, and they don't even do live music. Instead their music is only available on the Internet. The original Finnish article was nominated for deletion, and the result was evenly matched between keep and delete. I don't think this is notable enough even within Finland, let alone outside it. Delete. JIP | Talk 16:51, 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. Nonnotable. El_C 08:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Bend Crime Prevention Patrol

This entry fails to meet noteablity guidelines any tags to fix or upgrade article are removed by the groups members. TheRanger 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I was able to remove the parts you beleived sounded like a recruiting ad (namely, the FAQ). I added a references section and wikified the content. I hope this is closer to your reqeusts so we do not get deleted.
I have made updates and added notability. This article clearly has as much relevance and notability as the S.S. Badger article. Will someone please answer my concerns as to why this is any different from other articles? RRCRich 00:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: rrcrich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The best place that I can refer you to for your answer is found at this link WP:ORG. It basicly needs to be noteable to a encylopedia entry and not just of local interest. It looks as if you have a fine local group however, as your example with the S.S. Badger that is of interest to both the local cities it stops as well as the traveling public as a whole. I have used google and found no newspaper or major media coverage at all for your group, the only sites were your group site and the city of West Bend site and very little on that one. TheRanger 03:07, 4 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, Keitei (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either non-local impact or press coverage that deals specifically with the organization seems to be required for notability under WP:ORG. Neither is documented in the article. EdJohnston 02:37, 9 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. The nominator has reverted to the prior version of the article and withdrawn the nomination. Uncle G 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-point stance

Delete per WP:WEBSpeedy keep. Looking through the edit history, I now realize this is a football article that was vandalized early in its history. Whoops... --- RockMFR 17:06, 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 keep. - Bobet 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frontera Grill

Seems to be a directory entry with nothing to say of note. I do not know if the restaurant has any notability (perhaps in the US it has), but in any case it would be more appropriate to merge in to the article about the owner (Rick Bayless) - assuming he himself is worthy of inclusion. Emeraude 17:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Cracknell

Non-notable political activist. Fails WP:Bio. Catchpole 17:13, 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 speedy delete per G11 (spam). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic computers

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olean Center Mall

Here we go again. This article is about a mall which (the article does not say but my oh so fantastic research shows) is in Olean, New York. You can find its website here and convince yourself that this does not belong on Wikipedia. No reliable third party coverage, no hope of ever being more than a directory of shops in the mall, no apparent sign that this mall has any significance beyond the service it provides to the local community, nowhere close to meeting WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 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 was delete – Gurch 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Krider

if we indeed use the criteria mentioned in this entry (wrote papers, lead group of people, was an editor) we would have to include all professors of meteorology and numerous editors of journals - thousands of meteorologists. I think that we need more (perhaps Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal) or Charney Award for living meteorologists? Pflatau 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete (or make entry stronger) Pflatau 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - currently fails the average professor test. Thryduulf 15:21, 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 pschemp | talk 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Miggs

Delete. Article is very small and has very little relevance to the Hannibal canon. It is not linked from any other page and has only two categories. He isn't notable enough to feature his own article and his entire character could very easily be summarized in the Silence of the Lambs article.--CyberGhostface 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I remember the character from the movie, but can't think of any reason why he would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. This article can't be expanded beyond its present size, making it almost a dicdef. No reason to merge this anywhere since he wasn't at all important to the plot. ergot 17:56, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Kopp

Nom & vote ...
Del: John Denver's syrupy tribute notwithstanding, i am pro-WV. But he appears n-n, in heading one of 6 state institutions labeled as "universities" in a state with 0.6% of the US population, 50th in median income, and presumably not an exciting academic system. Did i mention his notability is not asserted, let alone described?
--Jerzy•t 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. "West Virginia isn't a big enough state for this university to count" doesn't strike me as much of a deletion argument, I'm afraid. --Aaron 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess We usually keep most university's senior leader. I'm not sure they all merit it so individual evaluation would be reasonable. The nominator only gave us an assumption of unworthiness, not an explanation or argument that unworthiness is the right answer. GRBerry 03:40, 5 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. theProject 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pg games

Not a notable games company. Speedy delete (it's a repost) was both deleted and later contested, probably by the same person under a different user name. Google gives very few hits when searching for founder's name + company name [23] [24]. A search for Pg games gives 9,440 hits, but most seem irrelevant. Further claims the article "provides a unique insight into the game making theory and philosophy behind pg games", but it's just a list of home made games. - TexMurphy 17:34, 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. - Bobet 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyToGive

Prod removed without comment. Promotion for a website that, per the article, "benefits causes, charities and fundraising efforts worldwide." Per the site itself, it's a social networking site where people may engage in fundraising activities. Either way, it generates zero relevant google hits and no ranking on Alexa. Totally fails WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 17:38, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Atlantium

Previous AfDs for this article:
Previous AfDs for this article:

Vanity article for a non-notable fake country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairHair (talk • contribs)

previous nomination
  • Close as bad faith nom / Keep - FairHair is making this nomination in bad faith, in retribution against User:Gene Poole over incidents related to Conch Republic over the last several days, which have attracted administrator attention [25] and required an ANI report [26]. This article is about a micronation, not a country, and the article is clear in stating that it's a micronation and meets the criteria used for determining if micronations are notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what exactly is the criteria established for Micronation notablity? --- The Bethling(Talk) 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC):[reply]
reply There isn't an established criteria, there is however a working proposal developed by User:Gene Poole Bo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That proposed guideline is what has been used repeatedly to nuke people's web-only, or thought-up-between-high-school-classes, Micronation articles. To meet the criteria, the Micronation has to have widespread press coverage, and a real-world presence of some sort (even if that's souvenier material production). One could posit higher criteria (some sort of actual territory claim) but there seems little point; the ones that have a real world presence of any sort and press coverage is a small enough group, all of which now have WP articles. Very few below that threshold do. Sealand and Hutt River Province are not the only Micronations of note. Georgewilliamherbert 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice , but Amazon describes that book as a "humourous mock guidebook"[28]. Bwithh 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Reply micornations not taken seriously by the vast majority of the world, of course the guide is a mockery! Bo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a humorous mock guidebook, but so are Molvania and Phaic Tan and they warrant a Wikipedia article. WP:NFT states that something made up one afternoon in school can be included in Wikipedia if someone researches it thoroughly and writes a book, academic paper or magazine article about it. The Lonely Planet book does that for many of these places so that should be the end of the argument. It doesn't really matter whether they're bullshit or not. Crico 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molvanian and Phaic Tan are parody creations by professional comic writers. Things like Vikesland and Atlantium appear to be serious creations by amateur eccentrics (to put it politely). Bwithh 17:46, 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. - Bobet 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Canon of Sherlock Holmes

Hm. Well, I don't want to use this word, but I'm not sure how else to describe it. Original research. Perhaps some of the summaries of the "extracanonical" works can be incorporated elsewhere? -- Merope Talk 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Reads like an original research essay. Wickethewok 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a notable topic and the subject of study for more than a century. Whole books (such as The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes) have been written about the semi-canon material written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle but not considered part of the core set of Holmes stories. The article does have somewhat of an essay feel to it due to the signed "conclusion" section, but that's a case for cleanup, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment According to the Canon (fiction) article, the concept of a literary "canon" originated with Holmes scholars attempts to differentiate the core Holmes stories from the many pastiches, parodies, etc. In other words, Holmes was the first fictional work to be discussed in terms of having a "canon". This further strengthens my already-ironclad opinion that the topic is worthy of an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and Start Over The subject itself is noteworthy, so I have no problem with that, but I'm not sure of this article. I'd suggest it being part of the main Sherlock Holmes article, but that might take up too much space, so it would be best to keep seperate.
  • Keep for now and cleanup Desperately needs referencing, but as per Starblind, I'm going to give the creator the benefit of the doubt for now. Cleanup, reference, and remove the essay-like "conclusion". If it still lacks references in a couple of months, reconsider for deletion. I don't think this is fancruft by the way. It's far from sufficiently obsessively detailed over trivia. Bwithh 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but get rid of the speculative stuff. Stev0 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan, especially his note about the historical nature of discussing Holmes' canon. This article needs clean up but there is enough there worth salvaging. Agne 07:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snide Remarks

{{db-context}} tag removed, so I'm bringing it here. Single-line article with no assertion of notability. Aaron 17:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron (music)

Neologism. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 17:57, 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 keep, there are nontrivial works discussing her art. --- Deville (Talk) 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Singer

Doesn't pass WP:BIO, the first book has no mention of her in its author list on worldcat and the second doesn't seem to exist at all. Would say delete as non-notable. Localzuk(talk) 18:04, 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 redirect while deleting the history, since the content doesn't have anything to do with the reason of the redirect. - Bobet 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of Cthulhu

The fictional religion is dealt with in the article on Cthulhu; the real-world organization seems to lack notability. See Talk:Cult of Cthulhu Nareek 17:59, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW; no votes to delete other than nom and (possibly confused or insulted) article author. NawlinWiki 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9th Street Art Exhibition

nn group--ITY 18:14, 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 speedy keep. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Muehlebach Brewing Company

non-notable company Andy Andy 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) — Andy Andy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Maldini

Definitely a crystal ball. Angelo 18:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coment - I think that for a person redirect is appropriate where there is sufficient notability to be indexed in the encyclopaedia but not enough for a separate article. Here, there is no notability as yet. BlueValour 20:09, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Star Trek fans

WP:NOT Arutdy 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borges is a person, not a show, so you can't have a guest appearance. This is admittedly an unencyclopedic topic, but Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia so it fits.--T. Anthony 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dot dot dot Danny Lilithborne 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Category:Science fiction fans and List of notable boxing fans.--T. Anthony 03:22, 5 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 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

285 Hamilton

Yahoo!, Google, et. al started NEAR this building, not IN it. [29] Presumably this also holds true for 284 Hamilton and 286 Hamiliton, but we don't have articles about them. Stev0 19:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laromlab

The article looks like self-promotion; I think it is far from meeting the criteria at WP:Music. A google search for " Hate the Player, Not the Gameboy" has a single hit, at myspace. (contested prod; original author was user:Laromlab). Aleph-4 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, Myspace != notability, AmitDeshwar 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you google laromlab numerous articles in magazines across the country and world come up, as well as some record label information. i came across this from another site, so I think that pretty much solidifies it. Just becasue a band or musician does not meet the exposure standards of few, does not give them the right to delet the musicians article. Nothng is being promoted here! Its merely a history of the musician from what I can see!*Do Not Delete. Does not Fails WP:MUSIC, Myspace != notability, Shandog 04:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.111.228 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 October 2006[reply]
  • delete, needs to establish notability better. Monni 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the information contained in the article is unverified. I do not see any reliable sources that have discussed this artist (a myspace site is definitely not a reliable source). Thus, since Wikipedia is not not a webspace provider or an indiscriminate collection of information, this article should be deleted. Notability is not policy, and there are adequate and independent grounds for deletion aside from notability and WP:MUSIC. We should rest on policy to the exclusion of notability wherever possible. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:14, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Beare

Non-notable local politician. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - doesn't mention anything that is notable about him. Mapetite526 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - disputed prod, but nothing notable. -Steve Sanbeg 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete - Notbale as he was listed in the Irish Who's Who, (was formerly an adviser to Fine Gael in Ireland (main opposition party) and has achieved in Scotland the biggest swing from the Governing party in living memory. I think this entry needs to take these into account and be amended ratehr than deleted. -Leaghton 11:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm not too clear on UK government structure. Scotland is a nation, so Fife is a first level sub-national unit. It is the logical, but by no means real, equivalent to a U.S. state. It is the real, but not logical, equivalent to a U.S. county. I think the real comparison is more meaningful, especially given the size of the electorate. I therefore consider deletion appropriate, as there is no evidence that he meets the lots of press coverage test. GRBerry 03:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - He's important to the people he represents. Its a clean, well written article. --Alpharigel 17:56, 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 keep and merge Stress (original band) into it. The current article was cut and pasted from the 'original band' article so I'm merging the histories too. At one point, the articles weren't about the same band, but there's really not enough content in the history to start an article about the other band (it would get deleted under csd a7). - Bobet 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the discussion was transcluded at both the october 2 and october 4 pages. If you have a problem with me closing it early, leave me a comment, thanks. - Bobet 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stress (band)

This is an article about a band which released, according to the article, one LP, one single and one 12"; a CD of their back catalogue has since been produced. It does not appear that their releases were on a major label, as failure to be signed by a major label was cited as the reason for the band folding. The article was very spammy, I cleaned it a bit. I do not see any credible assertion of notability, but it may be that Someone Out There knows of some additional data which will establish the importance of the group.

This nomination was originally closed out of process after no input by User:Parsssseltongue, citing bad faith nomination" (no evidence appears to have been advanced to support this assertion) and has been relisted following a debate at deletion review. Guy 16:08, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD general criteria #1 (patent nonsense). Wikipedia is not a place to promote schoolboy nonsense, please see WP:NFT. Gwernol 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third briefs

i dont think it's a hoaxbut it may be a joke Kowlse 20:11, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel today

Clearly an advert for a magazine, apparently (from use of 'we') written by the magazine or its staff; biased POV issues, and external links to biased POV magazines. Additionally, not wikified, full of grammar errors. Emeraude 20:22, 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 merge. Petros471 10:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The War of the Roses (Shakespeare)

These plays are not usually called "The War of the Roses," and, in fact, simply consist of all Shakespeare's English history plays save King John. This subject is already dealt with at Shakespearean history, although that article should be improved. john k 20:23, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A6. --Nishkid64 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin

Page is nothing more than an attack page for a user at Wikipedia. Not to mention that it violates WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Request speedy delete. Ramsquire 20:44, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cargoitalia

Article about a corporation that shows no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Appears to be company doing self-promotion (WP:SPAM). Twice deleted for expired WP:PROD, once deleted for copyright violation, I'd suggest that if the result of this discussion is a Delete, that this article be Protected from recreation. Valrith 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Airlines are generally notable. I looked for newspaper articles about the company, and added two under "References" in this article, which means that it now unambiguously satisfies WP:CORP. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first of these 'articles' falls into the category of merely trivial coverage as defined by WP:CORP : "... articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". The second is inaccessible to me. Valrith 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the first article is about 200 words long and is non-trivial. [This] would be a trivial article. The second article is a bit longer, and is also therefore non-trivial. Newspaper or magazine articles which are not available online (or for which free registration is required) are just as valid as those that are available online free of charge. I wish someone had looked up these newspaper stories and added them to the article before the article was prodded. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As well, please note that both newspaper stories are bylined (that is, they indicate the name of the journalist who wrote the story), which generally indicates that the newspaper story is non-trivial. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
      • i agree. i have no idea why you are indicating any of your reasons for deletion.

Urban909

  • Delete I believe the articles amount to trivial coverage as defined at WP:CORP. They are not truly about the airline, they are about schedule expansions of adding particular flights. What we need to have a solid article is independent coverage about the airline, not about a particular flight. I suspect this may be an article that needs to be created on the Italian wikipedia and then translated here. GRBerry 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 5 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 deleted per CSD:G11 (blatant advertising)

Info-Quest

Appears to be no more than a publicity puff for the company. Emeraude 20:54, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran and science

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOV--it is an attempt to correlate parts of the Qur'ān with the current paradigm of scientific thought. Fails WP:OR as well. It is interesting, certainly, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If it can be salvaged, I'm all for it--however, I think the idea of selectively correlating parts of a text (while ignoring those bits that don't correspond well) cannot adhere to NPOV. -- Merope Talk 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind regarding the article. I believe that, should it implement reliable sources and address both aspects of the issue (as Science and the Bible does), it will be an excellent and interesting contribution to the project. It will have to be developed beyond the collection of quotes it currently hosts, but I no longer believe it is a candidate for deletion. Keep. -- Merope Talk 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:: The article Science and the Bible should also be deleted? Read the introduction of the article that I am creating where it claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically?? Secondly I am still expanding it and not yet finished with it. Any comments on its contents will be too early. Let me complete it and then you can delete it. Thats way you will also have more fun with your deletion. BTW I feel some people so biased that they "mark" the article with non-neutral/disputed tag (that says see "talk page") when I just named it and nothing significant was in it . I had seen the talk page it was also blanked at that time :). Now it is nominated for deletion when I am still expanding it. However, I love those people as they encourage me and push me for being better Muslim and do more research about my religion. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Science and the Bible examines both correspondences, errors and consistencies. It also contains citations from reliable sources indicating that people other than the author have done inquiry into the field. If this article were formatted in this way, I would not have nominated it. -- Merope Talk 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article will be much better than that. If it servive for few days. However you must kill it early (very first day). --- ابراهيم 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions typically last five days, and you are encouraged to continue editing in that time. -- Merope Talk 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a PhD student and have to work 12 hours a day. You do not set deadline for me. I decline to work under your deadlines. Go delete it and be happy. --- ابراهيم 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The five-day deadline is non-negotiable. I'm sure you're busy, as many other editors are, but the response of the deletion process is given after five days, no matter what. --Nehwyn 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. The article will need the same kinds of citations that Science and the Bible has. As it currently stands, there's no indication that this is anything but Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have lower standards than other contributors here, but the fact that there are now sources added (on the Talk page, which is a start towards incorporating them in the article) is good enough for me. Keep therefore, and with any luck it'll start to look better soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the thing are either from Quran or from corresponding wikipedia science article. Hence most of them are referenced, rest of them are commonly know fact. Now let see your claim is true this article is not referenced. Tell me there are many articles exist in wikipeda with a special tag saying "references/citations need". Why not delete all those dozens of articles? --- ابراهيم 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you've misinterpreted me. The citations in this article at the moment are from the Qur'an and that's perfectly ok, since we need the text there as it is. There are also explanations of the scientific processes involved. What the Science and the Bible article has as well as these is a collection of sources where scientists and theologians have examined the compatibility of the two things. This article (at the moment), doesn't. I'm not saying that such sources don't exist, I'm just saying that they're not here at the moment. Without them, it looks more like original research. For example, which "Scientists say that before the galaxies in the Universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of huge gaseous matter or clouds." Likewise, I was under the distinct impression that some planets orbit the sun in an elliptical manner rather than the "rounded course", so a citation would need to be provided here, and so on. In relation to the argument that there are other articles which don't cite sources, the fact that a series of articles of a certain type exist isn't a reason in favour of keeping any particular article of that type. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • About science I am copying most of the things from wikipedia other articles. BTW rounded does not mean perfext circle or ellipse. In rounded both are covered. It is just commonly known fact. I know because it is about Islam so I have to find references about commonly known fact. I also know that you cannot even wait for references for few hours or days. TELL ME that if "Science and the Bible" was in its current shape during very first few hours? Go and see its history. Oh I forget current article is about Islam not about Bible so it should be perfact from 1st minute.--- ابراهيم 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, please understand that no one is attacking you nor the Islamic faith. Secondly, I believe you are still mistaken as to BigHaz's meaning: it is not the science that needs citations, but the correlations between science and the Qur'ān. I could go through the Upanishads and correlate sections of it to scientific thought, but that would be original research. Unless you have evidence that people other than yourself have made these correllations, it fails one of WP's primary guidelines. If you read the Science and the Bible article, all the arguments presented have been published in scholarly works, not contributed by Wikipedia editors. I understand that you say it is a work in progress, but perhaps it should be moved to your personal sandbox until you've brought it up to Wikipedia's standards. -- Merope Talk 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* There are many books written in that subject. However, it is not possible for me (being a human) to cite them all with one movement of my finger. You can search Amazon and other books site for them. How can I cite those books and give reference in just few hours. You are just like the person who visit factory and after seeing tire says "This thing will not work, distroy it". If person like you exist in the world we never have any cars. --- ابراهيم 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a further addition to my thoughts on the matter, I do have to note that there's quite too much original research in this at the moment. And the fact that it will hopefully get better in the future is not a valid argument: when an article is posted, it should be eligible from the moment it is posted, not at some undetermined time in the future. I'm not saying "exhaustive", just eligible. --Nehwyn 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an apology, a defense of Islam. Wikipedia however is an encyclopedia, a record of what people believe, it's not for inviting people to convert to Islam. Now if this article instead listed those arguments that have been used in Muslim apologetics, that would be fine. This article isn't built along those lines, though. Dr Zak 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does not give any opinions. It tell what Quran (with refrence to Quran meaning) says and then what science says (with reference to corresponding wikipedia article). The article is not yet done. --- ابراهيم 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Can you please delete it. I will try to work on it at my user space and will post it back after making it much mature. I will try to give both sides view and everything will have reference. At the moment they have started an edit war and adding their own comments. For example -- Ant cannot speak "ARABIC" (just 100% their own comments - like talk page). I already have much less time to work on the article and cannot afford it at the moment. Can some guide me that how can this article be deleted? Danke schoen!--- ابراهيم 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Same as Nehwyn, I'd like to see where this goes. It has only been through about 5 hours of editing. Looking forward to a great article. Cheers! zephyr2k 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a simple google search I found at least a dozen references (which I have added to the article talk page) for the correlation between Quran and science. This article definately has value and I look forward to seeing it developed more. Ratherhaveaheart 23:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • : See I have to work on other things too and do not get lots of free time to work on wikipedia. In order to improve the article I want to do following two things. Firstly, I will ask some other people in wikipedia to contribute (as they are good in this subject). Secondly, I will issue books from library. However, it depends that when I will have free time again (may be after a week). Lastly, I think when more people will know about the article then it will improve significantly. Because few will add criticism and other will defend it with references at the end we will have a healthy article (that what is wikipedia about). This all CANNOT be done in 5 or 10 days under the hanging sword of article-deletion deadline. --- ابراهيم 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say, either nominate Science and the Bible for deletion, or get sources for this. Keep Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Although there are different views on what the Qur'an states about various scientific principles, this article will probably cover them in time. This AfD nomination was made much too soon. BhaiSaab talk 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it stands now the article is an apology of Islam. It's a good thing that you invite other people to work on it, and the work already done is a good basis. However, you know (or by now you should know) what the rules are. There's nothing forbidding you from working on a preliminary acceptable version of the article outside Wikipedia, or in your own userspace. I'd be happy to help, but the article is original research (your own ellaboration) and I'm not familiar with any reference works that could be used in this case. For now, no vote, but I'm afraid the article cannot stand as it is now, as it violates policies that are at the core of Wikipedia. If it does get deleted, you still have the right to ask that a copy of the text be restored outside of article space for your own use, so you can eventually make it conformant to WP policies and re-create it.
Comment 2: The above observation by Danny Lilithborne is simply not a valid argument. "If you delete this, why don't you delete that" is possibly the single most posted opinion in AfD, but it never works, and it only messes up the process. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very aware of that. However, I think it works in this case. Deleting an article that just needs citations and clean-up to be encyclopedic is not appropriate, and deleting this but leaving the Bible article conveys a clear double-standard. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a very clear difference between the two articles, though: one examines the relationship between science and scripture (both correllations and discrepencies), and one selectively interprets passages in scripture to show that they are in agreement with scientific thought. If we were drawing analogies, this would be similar to an article about Creationism that only listed verses that could be interpreted to agree with scientific finding. The fact that the creator has stated within this AFD that the article "claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically" further adds to the article's underlying POViness. -- Merope Talk 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I said "WHERE" it claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically?." It had a different meaning then what you have understand. --- ابراهيم 09:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So put a POV tag on it. It's not like the creator owns the article. Danny Lilithborne 02:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands, this article needs a lot of work, however, in principle, I can't find a reason to object to it other than it will be difficult to do properly. However, it is not necessarily impossible to do so, and I'd prefer to wait at least a month, see if it gets anywhere close to the Bible article. FrozenPurpleCube 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter is very interesting, and it need not be an apology of religion, as long as it shows divergences as well as consistencies. At present, the article only mentions consistencies (with the macroscopic exception that I added), so I do agree there is a big POV going on here, and quite a lot of original research too. --Nehwyn 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To early for an afd, topic is encyclopedic, try doing a google search. Afd is not the place to address editorial issues.--Striver 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like almost everyone who show up here are Muslims asked by Ibrahimfaisal![30] So no way to delete ANY article because he just ask all his religion friends.Opiner 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I'm an atheist, and if this article isn't up to good standards in a couple of months, I'll nominate it for deletion myself. But you'd better stop messing up the discussion. You haven't contributed at all to this or to the article. Keep, by the way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a Bahá'í who actually is not too fond of Islam. But I am far less fond of religious bias and definitely not fond of random accusations. Might want to keep your suspicions to yourself next time. Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the last few AfD's I have participated in this same argument is put forward "the other side is just having his friends come and help him". First I think there should be more faith in the WP Community. Lots of people contribute to these debates, many people who just want to help improve WP and have no connection what so ever to the article in question. Furthermore it is an ad hoc attack to focus on the personalities of the contributors rather than the substance of the debate. I personally peruse the AfD's and participate at on anything that catches my eye. When generalities are made about the contributors of a debate that do not apply to me at all, I feel a bit insulted. Ratherhaveaheart 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment: I only asked them to contribute in the article and not asked them to vote here. I even continue asking same people to contributing in the article even after their vote here. Only three people vote here after I ask them to contribute (you can find their ratio from total votes). I even ask Pablo-flores to contribute. I never know him before here; he is not my old friend. Furthermore, it makes no sense to ask people to vote because it will inform those people too who will vote against you. I am more intelligent than that. --- ابراهيم 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ibrahimfaisal's source would appear to be this deeply misleading speech by Zakir Naik, which he posted to several user talk pages prior to the creation of the article, but is uncited in the article. I can't say how Mr. Naik feels about this, but it looks like plagiarism if not also a copyright violation. A check at the creators' contribution history shows that several of the votes above were indeed solicited from editors who had no prior involvement with the article, but which Ibrahimfaisal had reason to believe would be favorable to the notion advanced in the article. It is not only uncited, but essentially false in its exegesis (and, in a few cases, translation) of the passages in question.Observation Post 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Observation Post (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This book does not agree with you. --Striver 12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I had only posted Zakir Naik video on one person page and it was many days before creating article. Can you point the other pages where I have posted it or confess that you are not telling truth? Most the translations of Quran are from famous three translators and are well-cited. --- ابراهيم 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. i find it rather strange that an editor would participate on this AfD with only his third edit, the two prior to it being to remove redlinks from his/her user and talk page. ITAQALLAH 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — but fix. All of the empty sub-sections should be removed until something is ready to go in.
There is a problem with analyzing scripture in that the meaning is not always clear. It could really use sources, especially when it is drawing a conclusion between a particular scientific fact and an particular reading of the Quran.
This is not an apologia. Pointing out correlations between scripture and science in not by definition apologetic. Such correlations do not validate the veracity of either side.
The obverse is not true. Religious beliefs that run counter to science are nothing more than superstition. Scientific conclusions about theological points represent nothing more than the hubris of scientists making the a priori assumption that the entirety of experience must fit into a materialistic model. MARussellPESE 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep retaining the option of revisiting the article in 30 days to see if there is sufficient improvement to justify its remaining. Badbilltucker 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of "Quran and science" has been addressed by many Muslim academics. Books on the topic are carried in most Islamic book stores. As long as they are used as sources, and those sources are properly cited, the article is legitimate and notable. ImKidding 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)This user's fourth edit[reply]
  • Delete. Appalling pseudo-science, either based on WP:OR or sourced contravening WP:RS. It makes both the concept of Islamic sciences (that did have glorious times ...1000 years ago) and WP a laughing stock. Al-Kindi or Alhazen would shudder in disgust confronted with this demeaning obscurantism. --tickle me 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As it stands today it deviates considerably from the approach taken by the Science_and_the_Bible article. There are a number of related articles WRT the bible e.g, Bible_scientific_foreknowledge and Biblical_inerrancy both of which should be templates for any similar examination of Islamic doctrine (or rather Islamic apologetics). I've looked at the article and I'm really worried it'll just keep poping up as an AfD if the edits taking place stay in the same style. Though I may seem anti- my first approach to arguments are through reason. It should also be renamed to Science and the Quran to be consistent with the approach taken with the Bible. Islamics must realise; the world have been-there-done-that with respect to infallible-word-of-god-and-science (TM). There is nothing new being argued here. Ttiotsw 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nowaday many researches are directed toward that field in which correlation between science and holy books take place so we should give the place for such an article that may be an interesting one and it like the approach taken by Science_and_the_Bible article but any theory in this article should be strenghted by a reference .Delengar 12:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move This article should be moved to a book page The Bible, The Qur'an and Science as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I might mention that the arguments listed on the page as so preposterous as to hardly be worth refuting, for example the line where it says the "heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them" allegedly refering to the Big Bang. Do we need to even mention that that Earth did not exist at the time of the Big Bang.--CltFn 04:14, 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 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Thomas

Profile of candidate to US congress election Nehwyn 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above account is not 'new' per se, however has only edited to two articles - Russ Feingold (four times, months ago), and Jeff Thomas (nearly sole contributor). Thanks for making us aware of another article that needs deletion - WP:BIO has a section on politicians, and people merely running for office don't qualify --Mnemeson 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just added several citations and did not have any before, because I did not know how to do it. I reworded the article to make it more balanced but the editing will not appear for some reason. If you edit the article you can see the changes. If you feel that more editing is necessary, please feel free to do so.
  • Keep, but remove the speculation. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Thomas in a brief search of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website. The article has the potential for expansion. Minus the speculation, the article is verifiable and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Articles about candidates for national office with verifiable information about them shouldn't be deleted, period (if part of the article is not verifiable, delete that part)--Zantastik talk 16:55, 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 redirect to Sonny Corinthos. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 11:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sonny Corinthos

This article is a duplicate of an already existing article for Sonny Corinthos.--Bookworm857158367 21:46, 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 keep. — TKD::Talk 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Walden

{{{Notability not asserted}}} Igbogirl 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent journalist on the UKs biggest paper- as such, very notable. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was merge and redirect to Dax (Star Trek) --- Deville (Talk) 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

Completing incomplete nomination by User:206.107.220.149. Had been prodded by User:12.75.0.155 with reason "insignificant non-character in movie". Merge or redirect to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. TimBentley (talk) 21:39, 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 should-have-been-speedy keep, due to lack of nominator/rationale. — CharlotteWebb 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in New Zealand

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Legolost. Keep, see no reason to delete. It's got a couple of red links, so it's not a copy of the category. TimBentley (talk) 21:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Younger

Completing incomplete nomination by User:DeleteF10. I don't know what the reason for deletion might be. TimBentley (talk) 21:48, 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 keep and move to "List of..." form. — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Pakistan

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Siddiqui. We have List of official United States national symbols and National symbols of Canada, so I don't know why this should be deleted. Merging would be preferable to deletion regardless. TimBentley (talk) 21:54, 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 speedy keep. Malformed and pointless nomination by an anonymous contributor. Please re-list with an explanation if you believe this article should be deleted. RFerreira 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School Kazhakootam

Completing incomplete nomination by User:61.17.22.93. Keep, seems as notable as other schools. TimBentley (talk) 21:57, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Higher Secondary School, Indore

Completing incomplete nomination by User:219.90.96.141 (probably User:Tanksingh).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, neither of the arguments for deletion are appropriate. The first (nom) is a completely invalid reason, the second so vague as to not be useful. If someone can come up with a valid and even slightly detailed reason for deletion in the future, send this back up in a few weeks. --- Deville (Talk) 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charges.com.br

Only popular in Brazil. Ragnarok Addict 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That's not a valid reason for deleting the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Pan Dan 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For heaven's sakes this is one of the most popular web sites of Brazil. Some of the charges made into television. I agree the article isn't very well done, but I feel offended for the nomination for deletion, and it makes me wonder if nomination for deletion should only be allowed for adimns. algumacoisaqq 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Being "popular" isn't a reason to be in an encyclopedia. If you can show me why this is notable per our guidelines (i.e. passes WP:WEB), then I will be happy to change my mind about whether this article should be kept. Pan Dan 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, personaly, I believe that being popular IS a good reason, but whatever, it's just my opinion. Acording to [31] tought, the site was choosen as "site of the year", as is visited by 120.000 people every day. Too bad it's in portuguese, as it is pretty much all material about it (not much I found, but not much I researched). What I can report you is that at every Sunday, at the sports program of TV Globo (by far the largest one in Brazil), there is one charge featured every week. The author also made some animations for the Big Brother (Brazil) show. The site was reviewed in Veja magazine, one of the biggest in the country. The author appeared in the television show of Jô Soares, a similar show in Brazil to David Letterman's or Jay Lenno's. Hell, in Brazil, the site is probably more visited then Wikipedia (and probably a LOT more then the Portuguese Wikipedia). But links and stuff? Sorry, I don't have. All the information in the article is easily accessible from the site - you just have to speak portuguese. Well, the informations on the article. The ones I posted here can't go for the article because I don't have links to prove it. They are true, tought. algumacoisaqq 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Also: I know the article lacks quality and such, and it's hard for people from outside to know about it's importance just from looking at it. But it could have being asked, I don't know. This isn't the first, or the second (well, it's the third) article for deletion that I see complaining about web based stuff, when it just shouldn't.[reply]
        • Given that there are sources in Portuguese, perhaps this would be a good article to write in the Portuguese Wikipedia? To be in the English Wikipedia there have to be (I suppose) sources in English, or translated into English. Pan Dan 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It allready exists in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Look, if you think the article lacks the quality to be on wikipedia, then just delete it, because it has been a long time ago since I wrote it and to be honest I have no interest in researching english fonts just to prove my point. I'm just saying that I know about the wikipedia rules - I used to be a regular contributor in Portuguese wikipedia - and there is no reason to delete this article at all. The thing is that I'm not interested to continue to maintain that particular article, so if you think it should be deleted for the lack of sources, fine by me (oh well, not really fine, I'll be pissed off, but whatever, at least I won't complain). The thing is that, as far as I know, all the info in the article is just to bloody obvious to be quoted from sources (yeah, I know, I need to read the "no original resource" rule again... but I just think that rule is flawed). Besides, I believe English wikipedia has the most resources about this subject in the English language. algumacoisaqq 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I just read again these rules (verificability, no original research). It looks like they are a lot more important now then they used to be. I didn't found any mention about language, tought. I still believe all info can be found inside the site (the site being a primary source, is it possible?), it's just that it is in Portuguese. Oh well, I'll see if anyone from pt.wikipedia is interested in fixing it. algumacoisaqq 18:11, 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 delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens "Raider Navy" NJROTC Program

One specific course in one high school is not notable or encyclopedic. Probably speedy deletion, but I'll err on the side of caution and say: delete. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 22:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HFBoards

Recreated after being speedily deleted under G11, so technically contested and in need of AfD debate. But really, can't we just WP:SNOW this spam?? Leuko 22:47, 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 kept, and moved to knot density. DS 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knots per sq cm

I don't see how this article about something that's not very important can be expanded any further. Joiz. A. Shmo 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being generous and Googling knots+"square cm"+carpet, I get about 400 results (85 unique), which at least shows the concept exists, but doesn't give much reason for there to be a separate article on this rather than a mention at carpet (when I first saw the article title, I thought this was going to be about a weird unit of some kind of velocity flux). Confusing Manifestation 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — Suggest renaming this to "Knot density" and covering the topic in general. There are several different measures of knot density in use, including knots per square inch, decimeter, meter, &c., so one article that covers them all would be good. Alternatively it can be merged with carpet. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. It reads like its original research personally. Where's the sources for what is considered high/mid/low quality carpet? Suggest Merge to rug making. But if someone doing the merger can't find any sources for this stuff (which, again, sounds like original research), might as well just redirect and leave a note on rug making's talk page about the content about the fate of the content that wasn't sourced at all. Kevin_b_er 21:03, 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 keep per "Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect". Daniel.Bryant 02:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mdirs

Nothing links here Palfrey 22:56, 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. DS 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Directory Structure

Non notable, fails google test Palfrey 22:59, 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 keep. - Bobet 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocoristics for Dutch names

This article is apparent WP:OR with no potential references found via search -- zero hits for the title search terms. The creator defends the inclusion of this article on the basis that Hypocoristics for Spanish names exists and suggests that removal would exhibit anti-Dutch bias. It's not my intent to be anti-Dutch, but I'm pro-project-policy. Erechtheus 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but I remain pro-Dutch ;-). Non-encyclopedic; this is not a name directory. I'd say delete for Hypocoristics for Spanish names as well for the same reason, but as it has not been nominated for deletion I'll leave it at that. Agent 86 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of Dutch pet names, perhaps? --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "pet names" is ambiguous: think about Snoopy, Fido, Garfield, and you see my point. Carlossuarez46 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The title is descriptive rather than some specific term, and absence of google search is meaningless. Lack of references is not big deal. We are not talking about something controversial here. I am quite sure there are quite a few Dutch namebooks in existence. Gogling for "dutch names" gives quite a few thoussands of google hits. I have found the article interesting: it shows a pet name formation distinct from, say English, and it may well be made in a solid article; examples exist, see eg [33] (not exactly on topic; just to show encyclopedic potential, and interesting, too; quoting: "For someone just starting Dutch research, a Dutch name is like a foreign word."). `'mikka (t) 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK here is even a more solid one: "DUTCH NAMING CONVENTIONS". So I guess the nomination was done in great haste without making reasonable check. `'mikka (t) 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Before you go around making accusations about the lack of a reasonable check, please explain to us how the personal webpages you have located pass WP:RS. Erechtheus 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • they pass WP:CommonSense. Once again, this is not some conspiracy theory or political rumors you may expoect fraud or fantasy. I am taking back accusations and apologize, since I see the nomination is based on genuine personal understanding of wikipedia. Still, I have to disagree with you, colleague, sorry.`'mikka (t) 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Quite a few Dutch namebooks in existence". You must be kidding. I was inundated by books every time my wife was pregnant. Well, many English, French and Russian names are now frequent and current in the Dutch language area, and some of these names are subject to "shortening" that would sound very strange in the original language. Dominique is shortened to Niek (also the shortened form of Nikolass) when the child is a boy, to Dom or Dommi when it is a girl. Tanja becomes Tan - in Belgium at least. Evelyn in all forms and pronunciations is shortened to Evy or Evie. "Kat" (yes, it also mean cat) can stand for many female names, and is rather awkward when you have a daughter called Kathelijn AND a daughter called Katja (like I have). While in the Netherlands only the female short forms are used for official registration at town hall (Cor or Neel are officially Conelis but Neeltje is registered), in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium the short forms are also registered for boys. So, this article can actually be expanded a "little".--Pan Gerwazy 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment to comment: "you must be kidding": no I am not. "quite a few" in English language is a politically correct way to say "a whole shitload of truck of these bloody books about baby names" `'mikka (t) 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment to comment to comment: Sorry, Mikka, but really, I was only kidding when I wrote "you must be kidding". Actually, I thought it was a nice pun on the word "kid". Does not sound so funny anymore when I read it all over now, of course. :<) --Pan Gerwazy 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. As per mikka (t) --Pan Gerwazy 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mikka. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 5 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 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave zelenski

Delete. This person is non-notable -- according to IMDB, he has had only one minor film appearance (so far) as "Teenage Passenger" in the 2005 movie, Reversal of Fortune. That role appears 25th on IMDB's list of credits for this movie. Google generates only 9 unique hits, all unrelated, for "David Zelenski", and 14 unique hits for "Dave Zelenski", some related, some un-related. Hopefully for his sake, he'll go on to have a great career and look back and laugh at us for our folly, but for now I just don't think this article is justified. (Note: I previously nominated this article for deletion using the PROD process). --A. B. 23:35, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_2&oldid=79141298"