Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nathan.manzi (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 5 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 4 July 6 >

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 of the nomination was delete all articles listed below at time of closing. San Dimas High School Football Rules cannot be deleted under this AfD, as the tag on its article was removed very early on during this discussion and not replaced, but there is no consensus on that song here anyway, so it's a moot point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Streak (song)

Song off an early, independent, nn album that didn't chart, nor did any of its singles. Burgwerworldz 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of an album by The Ataris entitled, Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits. This album was released by an independent label several years before the band achieved mainstream popularity. Each song on the album now has its own article, even though this album did not reach any billboard chart, and none of the singles reached any sort of chart as well. This band is not influential to have merit to have each song from a non-charting indie album have their own articles. Also look at music examples in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents Here are the additional songs and articles that I also propose for deletion:

--Burgwerworldz 00:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, with lots of thanks, however, to William Pietri for his kind and patient explanations to the author :) --JoanneB 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Mobile

Questionable notability of company ... also advert DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:58, 13 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pants under skirt

This is a non-notable neologism, perhaps a case of WP:NFT, so delete. Note that I have added PROD, Cfred has endorsed it, and 142.177.155.159 has removed it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Move to It's Goin' Down (X-Ecutioners song) Computerjoe's talk 19:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Goin' Down (Linkin Park song)

Useless article, needs redirect/merge to Linkin Park - Zos 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H! Vltg3 / Pts.Of.Athrty

Album, useless on its own, redirect/merge to Linkin Park - Zos 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne DuBose

Despite all of the text, there is really nothing here except that he's the pastor of a church whose former pastor was related to a President. That doesn't make him notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable pastor. He was pastor of the LARGEST Southern Baptist Church in LOUISIANA for fifteen years. We have many teachers, lawyers, and professors on Wikipedia who certainly have records no more impressing that Reverend DuBose. There are only about 15 Baptist ministers on the site. Are we setting a "higher requirement" for ministers than teachers, lawyers, and professors? I removed the "awards" from high school, as that line did seem to trivialize his accomplishments.

Here is a sample of a lawyer on Wikipedia, and I just pulled this name from random:

Steven Dennis Bell (born 11 February 1953 in Akron, Ohio) is a lawyer and mediator.

[edit] Biography Bell's parents are Samuel H. Bell and Joyce (Shaw) Bell. He graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1975 and from the University of Akron School of Law in 1979. He was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979. He served as an Assistant Director of Law for the City of Akron (1980 - 1983) and as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio (1984 - 1988). He also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Ohio (1992). In 2002 he became the managing partner of The Simon Law Firm, LLP in Cleveland, Ohio.

How does this lawyer qualify for inclusion but not the pastor of the largest Baptist church in Louisiana? -- Billy Hathorn

Hi, Billy. Thanks for coming by. I see you're a relatively new editor; you might want to look at WP:SIG and check out some of the other recent AfD discussions for the format we use here, plus Help:Editing for formatting tips. You're right that Steven D. Bell appears not to meet the criteria under WP:BIO, and I have proposed its deletion. I don't think there's any systemic bias here, but it's an interesting question. How do you feel Wayne DuBose meets WP:BIO? William Pietri 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another lawyer who is listed: Albert Bates From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Albert Bates (born 1947-01-01) is an influential figure in the intentional community and ecovillage movements. A lawyer, author and teacher, he has been director of the Institute for Appropriate Technology since 1984 and of the Ecovillage Training Center at The Farm in Summertown, Tennessee since 1994.

Bates has been a resident of The Farm since 1972. A former attorney, he argued environmental and civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and drafted a number of legislative Acts during a 26-year legal career. The holder of a number of design patents, Bates invented the concentrating photovoltaic arrays and solar-powered automobile displayed at the 1982 World's Fair. He served on the steering committee of Plenty International for 18 years, focussing on relief and development work with indigenous peoples, human rights and the environment.

Bates has played a major role in the ecovillage movement as one of the start-up members of the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), and GEN's president of the Ecovillage Network of the Americas (from 1996 to 2004). In 1994 he founded the Ecovillage Training Center, a "whole systems immersion experience of ecovillage living."[1] He has taught courses in sustainable design, natural building, permaculture and technologies of the future to students from more than 50 nations.


So what does this article on another lawyer have to offer that the article on Pastor DuBose lacks? What cleanup does the DuBose article require? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 July 2006 UTC.

Hello again, Billy. I'm disappointed that you appear to have missed my previous reply. If you think another Wikipedia article doesn't meet our standards, you should follow one of the approaches for deletion. If you believe this article should be kept, you should help us see how it meets WP:BIO, or explain how you plan to make it meet WP:BIO. Note that this isn't any sort of judgement about Wayne DuBose; I'm sure he's a fine fellow. Here we just decide if an article meets the appropriate standards. If you think the standard should be changed, I'd start with the appropriate talk page. William Pietri 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, the argument "you should keep my article because there are others just as bad" is not a valid argument. Discuss the merits of the article in question, please. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't meet any of the standards established in WP:BIO. We need more articles about clergy, but there are plenty of ones with better sourcing and greater significance available to write about. Look at the various founders and officers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions for examples of people we do need articles on - we don't even have the names of the founders, and it is probably the first American organization dedicated to sending foreign missions. It definitely antedates all American Baptist associations, as the first of those was formed to support Adoniram Judson who left the country as a ABCFM missionary and converted to being a Baptist enroute, causing him to lose his missionary support. If you want to work on Baptists, follow the links from Judson out one or two people until you find stubs. Build up Heather Mercer or Dayna Curry, both of which need work and are notable under the renown/notoriety standard. GRBerry 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been missed that Pastor DuBose was the pastor of the largest Southern Baptist congregation in LOUISIANA for a period of some 15 years. That alone should make him worthy of coverage. The church had over 6,000 members while he was the pastor there. -- Billy Hathorn

Hi, Billy. No, I did notice that, and should have mentioned that. There are two issues I have. First, we'd need to be able to verify that from a reliable source. Second, I'm not sure that's really enough: it doesn't obviously meet WP:BIO. Per WP:IAR, that's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'm having trouble extracting some principle that we could insert into WP:BIO to make it better. Running the largest X of type Y in place Z doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Have his accomplishments been noted elsewhere? For example, Rick Warren was recognized in Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report. William Pietri 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of information can go at Wikinfo, I believe, where they have different inclusion criteria. Notable pastors I know or have known and who have articles include Eric James, Robert Runcie, Richard Harries, Baron Harries of Pentregarth. How does this pastor measure up against those? Just curious. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Summer Grove Baptist Church, Shreveport, LA, to confirm that Pastor DuBose was there and that the church had its largest membership then -- largest in the state in fact. I am awaiting a reply. Billy Hathorn 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Billy HathornBilly Hathorn 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Billy. I'm glad to see you've gotten the signature thing sorted out. Have you read the policies and guidelines that I mentioned above on verifiability, what qualifies as a WP:reliable source and why we shouldn't do original research? Thanks, William Pietri 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to Linkin Park

Another album, redirect/merge to Linkin Park - Zos 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. The arguments against merge are convincing - to summarise them, there's no evidence that this 'chaos theory of literature' exists in any context, so it can't be connected with Hayles. If Hayles had actively associated herself with a "chaos theory of literature", then the article would be a merge candidate, but she didn't - one of her books is merely said to have "laid the groundwork for study". --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Theory of Literature

Looks like pomo nonsense. Nothing on Google/Books/Scholar. The article is vague about the books it actually mentions--there's a big difference between using an idea as a metaphor to aid in explaining another field, and devising an all-out theory of the field. This is along the same lines as broadly applying Einstein's Theory of Relativity to morality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 01:27

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BullsBalls

Blatant advertising, page author deleted prod.--NMChico24 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already speedily deleted by Pilotguy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The callen sisters

Definately WP:BIO, possibly WP:AUTO, maybe WP:VAIN and absolutely WP:NN only 8-10 ghits and half of those are MySpace DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:58, 13 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel V. Roggenbuck

former FBI agent, legal attache at a US embassy; no other notability claimed, doesn't seem like enough to me. NawlinWiki 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekspedisi Madewa

as a WP:NN Indonesian movie DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:58, 13 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Bones and U.S. Education

Like Skull and Bones historical connections (afd1 afd2), this article consists primarily of original research and largely unsourced speculations on the involvement of Skull and Bones in a vast global conspiracy to control American education. The primary author is AWOL, and nobody seems to have taken on the (massive) task of sourcing the article's statements. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ausflightsim.net

Non-notable website. -- Barrylb 02:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Is notability based on the number of hits a website receives? This site is no less notable than Avsim.com or Flightsim.com. In fact the content of this article explains the purpose of the website better than the aforementioned. The work that this site claims to be doing for the flight simulation community is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehmann (talk • contribs)
Comment, interestingly one of the two articles you cite was tagged for notability and I have just tagged the second. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carney

Notability in question. Main points made by article are that the subject is an uncredited extra in films and performs in unspecified theatre. The claim of an upcoming NBC talkshow is dubious, as the article cited is about Keira Knightly. There is nothing on that page regarding Richard Carney --NMChico24 02:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm removing this comment until GeorgeMoney can confirm whether or not he's the author. I doubt it since the edit is due to an anon. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me why this guy is signing my name? I have nothing to do with this article. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re GeorgeMoney ... he didn't add the post and User:216.231.162.9 is currently vandalising pages DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PuzzleCrunch

Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an Encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhyAbe.com

Advertisement. Cheese Sandwich 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete all. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyza

Not verifiable as notable. Google gives about 2600 hits for kyza +"terra firma". [1] AllMusic says that "terra firma" is a metal band from Stockholm. [britishhiphop.co.uk] is offered as a reference for Terra Firma, but that site's own site-specific search gives only six hits -- none of them very robust.

Klashnekoff comes cloest to any verifiable noteriety: 1060 hits for Klashnekoff +"terra firma" on Google. And an empty listing (no bio, no disography, no worked with) on allmusic. Mikeblas 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes:

Kyza
Klashnekoff
Terra Firma

I don't think verifiable notability should be excepted for "underground" musicians, even when they work together as a "collective" or a "record label" that produces "mixtapes".

(PS: This is my first try at a multiple AfD, so please check my work. Preash!) -- Mikeblas 02:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "...they have yet to release anything under the group's name", "...a forthcoming album...", "...the underground smash...". Fails WP:MUSIC. --IslaySolomon 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, crystal-balling for non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per scrying argument. SM247My Talk 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Klashnekoff is one of the top UK hip-hop artists currently around and more than meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. He has two albums out on notable independent UK hip-hop labels (check Amazon), performs frequently on Itch FM (London's leading hip-hop radio station) and others, and recently was one of the headliners at BBC Radio 1Xtra's UK Takeover event in Nottingham, appearing with Kyza and the rest of Terra Firma. I wouldn't argue that the latter two entries should necessarily be retained, but Klashnekoff has to stay. PS: 87,500 Google hits for Klashnekoff (spelt thusly); listed by the BBC 1Xtra website as one of the UK's most influential artists.Efortune 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Here's the BBC 1Xtra page, which is neither in-depth nor a ringing endorsement. -- Mikeblas 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Multiple performances and interviews on 1Xtra and Radio 1 should be enough for WP:MUSIC. If you know UK hip-hop at all, you've heard Klashnekoff; the nature of the UKHH scene is such that notability is not usually established through major-label albums. Mixtapes, live performances, pirate radio, and latterly music videos on cable/satellite TV stations are the means by which these artists become important. (In fact, if it were even necessary, you could argue a case for inclusion under the 'performers outside mass-media traditions' section of WP:MUSIC...) He's one of the best-known UK rappers at the moment, so unless the argument is that UK rap is so insignificant as to be unencyclopaedic, this surely has to stay. Efortune 23:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Klashnekoff, along with several other UK hip-hop artists are the future of hip-hop. Simply put, simply stated. They are making records, and making waves, and they will make a splash in the United States much the same way Paul Wall, Swisha House and Chamillionaire did. They are sort of an internet phenomenon outside out of their own countries as well, as without the internet I would have never discovered their wonderful sounds.Herzogthc 02:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - "duplicate" article is about a different and equally notable person = no merge. Kimchi.sg 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Queen (MLB player/coach)

There is already an article about him: Mel Queen (MLB pitcher). I think this article can be safely deleted/merged. --Jpwojcik 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Mel Queen (MLB pitcher) doesn't mention his coaching career, so simply merge them. -Seidenstud 06:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenon: Z4

Unverifiable, was deleted back in April. All links on google are from message board postings, no official word from disney to signify it's release. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.  RasputinAXP  c 04:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Powles

Non notable. No references provided.

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Piechura

No relevant encyclopedia information, just looks like a list of awards Superwad 02:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equity levels and flows

More of data table than an encyclopedic topic. Cheese Sandwich 02:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cee-Rock "The Fury"

Yet another "underground" rapper claiming notability for listing on Wikipedia. Article shamelessly includes external links to the few sites where the album might actually be purchased. Nothing for sale at amazon.com or towerrecords.com. Google finds 9850 hits for "Cee-rock", and only 548 hits for "cee-rock" +"The Fury". Mikeblas 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unlike most NN musicians Cee-Rock has actually had a commercial realise. That still doesn't cut it with WP:MUSIC. It's possible that he "is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" but the article makes no assertion of this. --IslaySolomon 03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That release has an amazon.com sales rank of "None". [5] I found a page that seems to claim he was involved with some other artist that charted at 37 in one of Sweeden's Top 40 charts, though that reference is at his own record company's site. [6] Maybe that can lead to something, but I think these "underground" guys aren't notable until they go commercial -- even if only because it's so hard to make a verifiable article about them with any substance. -- 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete per Islay. Perhaps his "dislike" of drugs and bad language earns him some notability, but not enough for me. AdamBiswanger1 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN and WP:MUSIC -- Alias Flood 22:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanther

Fails WP:MUSIC. No AMG entry, no major releases. This is part of a large group of bands from Plan-It-X Records that I'm nominating for deletion. It is unfortunately due to the very nature of the label (DIY ethic, no albums over $5) that they are non-notable. Although one provision of WP:MUSIC states that a band can be notable by releasing several albums on an important record label, Plan-It-X's only claim to notability is one EP by the band Against Me!. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opocalypse

This article claims that the artist has released a mixtape, which is a self-produced work and not a release on a major label. Little noteriety; searching for his name and the name of his mix tape on Google yeilds six hits [7], most of which are on Wiki-derived sites. I don't think this artist meets WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelakovski

The linked "official website" is "currently under maintenance". The MySpace page shows a last login of 12/15/2005, with only one friend. The article claims this artist has influenced Mobb Deep, but I can't find any relevant articles on Google [8] and the article sites no usable references. The article also says Kelakovski has influenced The RZA, and verification similarly fails; even less on Google [9] and no hard references are provided. The only release mentioned is a self-produced mixtape. Mikeblas 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt Village Records

The linked "official site" is "currently under maintenance and construction". About 277 hits on Google for "Corrupt Village Records". I can't see how this listing meets WP:MUSIC, and don't see how it meets WP:CORP. Mikeblas 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was keep, no consensus for merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Litter Dept.

WP:MUSIC not notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Humphreys (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 of the debate was the Illuminati want this speedy deleted as CSD A1. Kimchi.sg 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-jurisdictional Drug Enforcement Task Forces

More sources: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250l.pdf, http://www.in.gov/cji/drugfree/drugcrime/byrnedocuments/IN%20MJTF%20Rpt%20Form%20(092502).doc, aah, just google it: http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=MJTF&btnG=S%C3%B6k&meta=... --Striver 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously guys, you should be ashemed of turning "deluded conspiracy nut" and voting procedural deleted ...--Striver 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete and BJAODN. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, no BJAODN, as references added after those motions nullify them somewhat. There's just not much to merge though ("Public art is called 'plop art' by some people [1] [2]") - what is there could be written into public art in someone's own words without violating GFDL if they considered it absolutely necessary. I'll dig out the references from the article if anyone wants them for that purpose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plop art

Although funny & apt, is a non-encyclopedic neologism. Cheese Sandwich 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABCOffice

Article about an online office supplies retailer. No asserted notability. Article was created by contributions (what a subtle choice of username) whose only edits are external link spamming. The article has been reworked a bit but still fails WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure spam. -Seidenstud 12:22, 5 July 2006 (MDT)
  • Comment Calling the page "pure spam" is an exxageration. -- ABCOffice.com 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)-- The page follows the neutral point of view criteria by sticking to an objective history of the company and avoids making outrageous claims of having "the best" of anything. The ABC page is far less spammy than Office Max's or Office Depot's Wikipedia pages, which are blatantly commercial with inclusions of sale offers, return policies, etc. The page has only has 1 external link, fewer than Office Max's page, and is full of internal links to existing Wikipedia pages, so to accuse it of external link spamming is disingenuous. Edits and links to the ABC Page I made were done in accordance with the orpan page notice posted. As for notablility issues, ABC Office is a formidable ecommerce presence on the Web, and should not be penalized for not getting the negative notoriety the Dot-bombs garnered, (who have their own Wikipedia sites). Rather than knee- jerk deletion, please excuse my lack of Wiki-coding experience and make recommendations to fix the page to bring it into compliance. Thank you.[reply]
Comment I would take that criticism more seriously if you were not responsible for vandalizing the Office Max article by including an external link to its competitor OfficeZone (which ABCOffice owns I suppose). If that's any comfort to you I've edited a bit of the Office Max article and have tagged the Office Depot article for spam-cleanup. But this AfD debate is about ABCOffice and not the articles devoted to its competitors. There are three important criticisms which you completely fail to adress:
  1. the article was started by someone directly involved with the company which begs the issue of WP:NPOV and WP:VAIN and of course WP:SPAM.
  2. the article is about a company that fails WP:CORP.
  3. the article is about a web-service that fails WP:WEB.

These are the issues you should adress. Pascal.Tesson 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe reason I mentioned the Office Depot and Office Max pages is because I used those as a template of an "acceptable" Wikipedia page for corporations, which was why I was perplexed at the negative attention the ABC page has received. As far as the NPOV, VAIN, and SPAM critiques, I am an hourly employee for ABC Office, but I have no stake in the company, other than my bi-weekly, minimum wage, check. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I was cautious to exclude sales pitches, past advertising gimicks, slogans, financial information and mascot histories. It warrants the question, though, why would anyone not affiliated with a business entity take time to originate a wikipedia page for that company? The article does include links to competitor's Wikipedia sites, only has one external link, covers only the history of the company, and the previous logo was replaced with a better, neutral graphic. Rather than being vague, if you would please reference specifics on the page that need addressing that would be appreciated. I want to be in compliance.
Comment The page tells the story about how a Mom_and_pop_shop, started 25 years ago in someone's house, has flourished in a world dominated by giant box stores. That feat alone should be notable, not fettered away. And what makes ABC Office less notable than Acxiom, ALLTEL, Precept Insurance, Tuttle_Publishing, Sikorsky, or Bass_Pro_Shops? You have ceded that the page content is acceptable, and ABC's growth and success through the Dot_com_bubble, where bigger companies failed, makes it worth noting. ABCOffice.com 10:54, 6 July 2006 (MDT)
Comment I have not ceded the page content is acceptable, nor have you addressed any of the policy issues mentioned above, beyond claiming that, as a paid employee of the firm, you can be counted on to be fair, and that this article isn't advertising. Let me be yet another person to refer you to WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, WP:VAIN, and of course WP:SPAM. Tychocat 07:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentVain: “While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company;” – It’s preferable but not required. My being an employee does not automatically call for deletion. I could have done what every other corporate contributor did and just make up a phoney username so you couldn’t trace it back to the company. At least I was honest.

NPOV: “articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.” This article does not violate NPOV because it’s a neutral history of a company. It doesn’t make biased claims, and it links to competitor’s Wikipedia sites. All the information in the text is verifiable and on public record. If you actually read the article it focuses on origins, locations and ownership changes. Sales and other non-verifiable information was omitted.

Spam: The only reasons 3 or 4 links to this page were added to other Wikipedia sites was to get the page off the “orphaned articles” list, as was instructed by the add links tag placed at the top of the page. There are 17 links to other Wikipedia pages but only 1 external link. That hardly qualifies as Spam. There is no “sales oriented language” in the text so it should be differentiated as a legitimate article about a commercial entity.

As far as notability, the page qualifies based on several articles that have been published referencing our company, including stories in: Dezignare Interior Design,out of Austin Texas; The Salt Lake Tribune; and an upcoming publication from Fahy-Williams, out of Geneva, NY. You still haven’t answered why ABC is less notable than the other companies listed in the previous posting.

I have been specific in my explanations on why the page does not violate the WP guidelines cited. Now would you please be specific on why you believe it does, other than that it was written by an employee, which according to policy is not recommended but does not automatically warrant deletion. ABCOffice.com :28, 10 July 2006 (MDT)

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection economy

Neologism - article admits as much. Cheese Sandwich 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rahil Babooram

Myspace and personal links only. References have been requested but the main author of the article keeps removing requests. Bringing to AfD to determine whether this article passes on notability grounds. -- Longhair 04:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario's Hoods

A directory of 'hoods" in Ontario complete with what gangs you can find in each. As odd as it sounds...it appears to be original research and uneyclopedic. Metros232 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Clifford McCourt

This is a copy of http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_McCourt. As unfortunate as it is, the only notable fact is that the woman died as one of the many innocent victims in the september 11 terrorist attacks. Hence, no separate article is warranted for by WP:BIO. -- Koffieyahoo 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Drabinova

This individual is non-notable per WP:BIO and doesn't meet criteria from the proposed WP:PORN BIO guideline. Delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish colloquial terms

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mais oui! 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Scottish English after an edit and tidy up DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nom. Also, this list is terrible. It's a strange combination of authentic Scots words, modern regional slang and common english language words written phonetically so as to be spoken in a Scottish accent. --IslaySolomon 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any notice of this "discussion" on the original creator of the article's talkpage. Common courtesy would seem to demand it, particularly when one notes that this article has a/ existed for quite a while without anyone's feeling the need to burn it and b/ been worked on a fair bit. I think you could argue that this stuff would be difficult to source, but there's no reason we couldn't have a discussion of Scottish dialect terms and their variance from English under this title. Merging it with Scottish English is likely only to bloat that article. So keep but urge cleanup and more careful sourcing.Grace Note 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apologies for uncivil sounding "this list is terrible" comment, however I stand by my opinion that this list is far too inconsistant to be edited or merged into anything usefull. As for it being "worked on a fair bit", that's simply not true. The body of the article has not been substantially altered since it was created[19] (Fuhghettaboutit and 84.135.201.172 only alter spelling and 82.40.236.98 adds one word). During it's half-year life span this list has increased in length by precisely one item. --IslaySolomon 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is wiktionary material. Entries should be moved there. Scottish English would not be a good home for it because some of the entries are Scots language, some are Glaswegian slang and some are just phonetically spelled English. -- Derek Ross | User:Derek Ross 06:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Derek Ross that not all of the entries should be there, which is why I said it needed editing before being merged DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 06:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll concede that there is room for a few choice examples from the list to be used in the (rather inaccessible) Scottish English article. But only after some utterly brutual editing. --IslaySolomon 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, hen <- henny <- hinny <- honey <- sweet <- sweetheart. Nothing to do with poultry. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doright

This band does not appear notable - I'm not even sure it exists. Seidenstud 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Barryziff, you're not going to be able to convince this crowd unless you can provide sources; Ghits on band members and band don't turn up anything. Come to think of it, didn't I see the name "Sampson Cloud" in another article that was up for AfD recently? It certainly rings a bell... HumbleGod 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Lopes

A page by this name has been deleted three times as CSD A7. This version of the article at least asserts a significance so speedy is inappropriate. However, whereas it can survive a speedy, there doesn't seem to be enough information to create a usable article or even confirm everything in this one. The creator of this article is User:Ejtl, so there is at least a decent chance that this is an autobiographical article. (EJTL could be Eduardo Lopes's initials.) BigDT 05:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was

Early closure and Speedy Delete per nonsense clause. — Deckiller 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golgathar

nonsense ... don't know what this is all about ... appears to be someone messing about ! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - {{db-nonsense}} --IslaySolomon 05:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. I really wish people would watchlist AfDs they participate in and address major edits. However, it seems clear that the references provided by the rewrite do not address the biosetpoint theory directly. This is still original research.

This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and we cannot "judge this concept on its scientific merits". That is the job of respected scientific journals and other secondary sources, which if they choose to give it credibility can allow an encyclopaedia article to be written that satisfies WP:NOR and WP:V. In this case they haven't. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biosetpoint

07/10/06 - There has been a major editing of this entry. It is true that the concept was first published in the journal Medical Hypothesis, but I would invite any critics to judge this concept on its scientific merits. A copy of the manuscript is available for download at the biosetpoint.org website. It is unclear what "not notable" implies as regards myself, but all one has to do is put "Blonz" into any search engine. I can provide a CV to anyone on request. --Blonz 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) E.R Blonz[reply]

Apparent neologism/not notable medical theory (11 Google hits) by a not notable Ph.D (10 Google hits) who is likely the author of the article. Appears to be an attempt to push the biosetpoint website. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although a reference is provided, Med Hypoth is a weird journal that is populated partially by cranks and kooks. Wikipedia should not have articles purely based on material from that journal unless it achieves notability outside (e.g. gradual support by authors in other journals). This deletion is not because of NOR (because it is sourced) but because of notability. NB the editor who wrote this article is also the author of the Med Hypoth paper. I sense self-promotion. JFW | T@lk 06:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion for non-notable website and medical paper. User:Blonz also added "Biosetpoint" to Obesity but it was reverted 20 minutes later by a wikipedian nurse. And I wont even touch on the dubiousness of the "theory". A person can no more alter their genetic structure by eating the right food than I can will myself to become a chicken. --IslaySolomon 07:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The trick with publications is not that they are there but who FOLLOWS them up and where they are cited - I see no evidence of any such activity. Maybe in a couple of years? --Charlesknight 09:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Murder

Hoax by User:Barryziff, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doright. --IslaySolomon 06:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Strong Delete unless sources can be provided, which seems unlikely. Ghits for '"big murder" "Cabrini Green"' only turn up a few articles on Notorious BIG, which doesn't make sense if the artist is "a pretty big figure in northwestern inner-city culture." Sounds like a hoax to me. HumbleGod 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multiple inner-cities, not a particular one. therefore "northwestern."

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet Themes

The Wikibook William Shakespeare's Works has a page on the topic of: Romeo and Juliet

Wikipedia is not a place for your essays. -- Koffieyahoo 06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Will userfy on request of the user himself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G Ram Kumar

Self promotion. As the writer has written several books, he may meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest Delete unless his notability can be attested to from independent sources.-gadfium 09:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources have been provided. I'm not happy with the article having been written by its subject, but I'm now neutral on whether it should be kept.-gadfium 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep per news links provided below. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a search with key words "G Ram Kumar" in Google search engine and you will key references to writer & author G Ram Kumar.

Reviews for Cyber Crimes book written by G Ram Kumar has appeared in the following Indian newspapers:

• The Hindu Business Line dated Jan 9th 2006 - Drive safely on the info-way http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ew/2006/01/09/stories/2006010900140200.htm

• The Deccan Herald dated Feb 5th 2006 - Highway men on the net http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Feb52006/books162256200622.asp

• The Financial Express dated March 19th 2006 - Do you have a cyber shield? http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=120847

Regarding the book Career Excellence (Vol I & II), the following are the web links:

www.atlanticbooks.com

http://www.bagchee.com/BookDisplay.aspx?Bkid=B32435

http://www.kkagencies.com/

http://www.dkpdindia.com

As for his ebooks, please check the following link:

www.globusz.com/Kumar.asp

I hope this helps to let the message stay in your website. For further info, please check the author's website www.gramkumar.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.5.152 (talk • contribs)

: AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) --Gurubrahma 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't relisted by Deathphoenix due to a possible oversight. Am relisting it below. --Gurubrahma 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The web references available in the Internet stands as solid testimony to significant achievement of this young & upcoming writer. Please let this web page about the author stay in wikipedia's website. It will help many readers to know more about him. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.32.56 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak delete - Borders on nn imo. Information helpful on deciding the status of the article has not been forthcoming despite the 10-day+ waiting period we had. Delete without prejudice to well sourced re-creation following WP:BIO guidelines. --Gurubrahma 05:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Gurubrahma 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete a7'Blnguyen' | rant-line 07:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JSA Princeton 2006

This is probably a legitimate subject, but instead of being written in an ecyclopedic style, it focusses on two or three non-notable people that apparently attended the program. While I'm sure both of these fine gentlemen are very "cool" and everything, they definitely don't deserve an article detailing their lives and everyday activities. tmopkisn tlka 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sorry Yeanold, but as Mikeblas says you haven't actually asserted that Villains meet any of WP:MUSIC's criteria. Those are guidelines and not policy, but no-one else seems to think that Villains should be excepted. "Regularly covered in Hip-Hop Connection" with a link to a webpage that doesn't mention them anywhere is too vague to count as significant non-trivial third-party coverage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villains (group)

Unverifiable "underground" rappers. Can't find much on Google; searching for villains +"profesah 194" on Google gives 66 hits. Not listed at AllMusic, not for sale at Amazon.com or TowerRecords.com. External links apparently should lead to record company page, but goes to a page that says "Begin by uploading an index page to replace this default holding page."; apparently an unconfigured web server or hosting account.

I don't see a way to verify that this meets WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see: the external link website has changed addresses and didn't get updated (or leave a redirect at the old spot). The new site is one of the few places you'll find to buy thir albums online, so now I'm thinking this is WP:ADS. There's one release actually available at amazon.co.uk [25], so maybe this scrapes by WM:MUSIC if it is cleaned-up. -- Mikeblas 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't think Wolftown Records cuts it as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". I am slightly worried that WP:MUSIC may be unfairly prejudice against this kind of urban music. There seems to be a lot of "underground rap" coming up for deletion. --IslaySolomon 07:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Villains, though now unoficcially disbanded, have an album widely available nationally, as well as having regular features in the world's oldest hip-hop magazine, hip-hop connection [26], so there's two criteria straight away. Also, two of the members, Tricksta and Late, have a tally of solo achievements that qualify as notable in themselves. Yeanold Viskersenn 09:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Having an album "widely available nationally" isn't one of the criteria. The group needs a charted hit on a national music chart, or two or more albums on a major label or an important indie label. The article makes no assertion that Hip-Hop Connection has had "regular features" on the group. -- Mikeblas 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry but I'm pretty annoyed, I've spent a lot of hours trying to improve the quality of articles on UK hip-hop, and in the last couple of days someone seems to have swept across my edit list and nominated everything for deletion - I check every article of against WP:MUSIC, and have given reasons why each should be kept. Do people realise that an act only needs to meet ONE of the criteria on WP:MUSIC, not ALL of them? Villains do as has been stated twice above. Yeanold Viskersenn 10:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic American Religious Party

Hard to find any meaningful information about this political party, other than that it once existed, according to D.C.'s (Daniel Sachs') Political Report. The Google hits seem to be either WP article copies or passing references in anyone-can-edit websites (like acronym sites listing this as an interpretation of "HARP"). Google links to its supposed founder, Aiven Andrians, seem to yield only prankish pages. Consider his Amazon personal profile, in which he claims to have "studied all the major martial-arts systems, including secret systems used by the intelligance [sic] community", and having appeared in "the season finaly [sic] of West Wing ( 1st season )", even though IMDb seems to be missing his credit for that (or any) show. Consider also his SearchWarp page, titled "Aiven The Great", which states he graduated from high school in 1993, a red flag for vanity writers. (NOTE: wikiquote:Aiven Andrians is currently under review for deletion as well.) Back to the article in question, I question whether any reliable source can be found for this organization. For that matter, I wonder if had any more than 1 member, who just happened to know how to fill out a political party registration form. Delete unless reliable evidence of notability supplied. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OtherSingles

Was prodded editor removed the prod without comment, nn notable dating site, fails google fails WP:WEB. John Lake 07:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 08:10Z

Nigga know technology

No name blog. Fails WP:WEB -- Samir धर्म 07:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, I could swear I tagged it a little bit earlier and it got deleted, at any rate an nn blog. I tagged it a speedy again if I did wrong please remove or tell me too.--John Lake 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked in the deletion log and saw that I was right, it is a 3 times repost [27]--John Lake 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the blog has a wide readership if you'd bother to go to the site and look. It is an up an coming satirical site comparable to Maddox. I have no idea why the fact that only one contributor to thecockcockcockarticle is somethign that makes it unworthy of existence, unless you are attempting to imply that I'm plugging my own blog, which is ludicrous. Show some decency and respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarc1pedia (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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Salmon

Local candidate for minor office, fails WP:BIO, non notable Fram 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Full Court Press

A non-notable college publication, and not even the main college newspaper. As the newsletter of a subsection of an organisation, allowing this to stay would open a precedent for Wikipedia inclusion standards that doesn't warrant giving a lot of thought to. Harro5 07:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, though it is not notable, it is worthwhile to persue the article as has references and linkages to the Maize Rage article. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narukaeater (talk • contribs)
Confirmed sock of article creator; now blocked indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War For The Sake Of Love

Non-notable movie, gets precisely zero google hits. I've already moved the production company's page to the user namespace (User:Bradarproductions) and have been informed here that the user intends to move it back as soon as his new user rights allow. It's all just totally non-notable, I'm afraid. -- Francs2000 07:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad's Gone Crazy

Whilst this is a song by the eminently notable eminem, the song has never been released as a single and therefore lacks notability itself DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 07:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Saeed Al Mulla

Fails WP:BIO possible WP:VAIN only 4 ghitsDavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chocolate Speedway Band

Fails WP:MUSIC possible WP:HOAX as there are a big fat 0 ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewpedia

Irrelevant, Jewpedia has 6 articles! Sanbec 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Jackson

Also nominating copy-paste Shauna Shapiro Jackson. Autobiographical article for entertainment attorney. Has an IMDB entry with production credits on 9 low budget films and 1 TV series, but that isn't enough to convince me of notability. Oldelpaso 08:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IMDb bio was written by Shauna Shapiro Jackson. It is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV. Mr Stephen 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chabot

Possible WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO very few ghits Only external link is to the artists own site DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knucks

Another WP:BJAODN candidate - Fails WP:NEO- eek! meant WP:NFT, probably DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was redirect to Let's Dance. – Avi 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricochet (David Bowie song)

Again the artist is notable, but the song ain't DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Keep and Cleanup. – Avi 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep_Freeze_(software)

Appears to be an advertisement for the product. Nathan.manzi 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if referenced. A very well-known piece of software in the corporate world; however, the article needs references to prove this. Is something like [31] the sort of thing that'll get it comfortably within WP:SOFT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevildo (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Regardless of notability, this article has some POV issues fyi. The article claims the product is a leader in the field and that some Argentinian guy has a grudge against it...? These claims need to be cited. Wickethewok 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep, primary problem is POV (reads like a press release or corporate web page), and notability isn't entirely convincing. Might be willing to change my vote with a) a revision to remove POV problems and b) comments from users familiar with the program. Didn't read Tevildo's comment close enough; sounds like someone who would know, with an edit history that doesn't hint at bias. Changing my vote with the caveat that POV issues should be worked out if it's to be kept. HumbleGod 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above stated, I have to note that I'm pretty uncomfortable with aspects of this nomination. The user who nominated this for AfD was heavily involved in another page up for AfD (possibly an employee of that program's publisher distributor) that lists this product as a "direct competitor." I don't like the possibility that an employee from Company A is nominating competing software from competing Company B for AfD. Doesn't really invalidate the nomination, but it does make me squirm a little. HumbleGod 00:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no, I think he's an employee of one of the distributors for HDGuard, see Eye4you AFD. It is possible that he's simply trying to help us by clearing out non-notable software, but this sort of conflict of interest is a factor. Kuru talk 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed original comment to reflect this. Doesn't reduce my discomfort with this, and still feel it deserves mention, but as I said it doesn't necessarily affect the validity of the nomination. HumbleGod 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Indeed, I am actually employed by the company eye4you, we do distribute HDGuard which in turn is somewhat of a competitor of Deep Freeze (Deep Freeze has little presence in Australia and Europe). I absolutely love wikipedia, and thought it may have been a good idea to post articles on our company which is well known throughout the Australian public/private education arena, however, after reading through the WP articles I do agree that both the HDGuard and eye4you articles should be removed. Notability doubts and corporate _influence_ are present, and I think that this article shows signs of it also. Nathan.manzi 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thank you very much for the clarification. This does alleviate my concerns! Kuru talk 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and mine as well. I agree that POV is a factor with the current version of this article, and hedge my "weak keep" vote on the hope that this will be changed soon. Judging from the edit history of the article and editor contributions, it doesn't appear that corporate influences were directly a factor; if anything, I think some editors may have just relied too much on company lines when fleshing out the article. Hopefully this can be fixed, otherwise I expect we'll be seeing this here again soon. HumbleGod 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_5&oldid=62154628"