Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 23

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Displaced Brit (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 23 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 22 August 24 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Strong consensus that this fails WP:WEB. Nandesuka 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider (comic)

This is a long nomination, but please, I ask you to read on as I would like some participation from the wider Wikipedia community. This comic was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) and was nominated for a second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) (2nd nomination) where it ended as a no consensus. I am nominating again because I feel that the outcome of the second discussion was erronomous. Although the second nomination had such great keep votes such as "I masturbated into a sock last night" and general ILIKEIT style comments, I really do not think that their arguments hold much weight. They claim that this webcomic, seen here is notable because it was nominated for the 2002 outstanding sci-fi Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. This however, is not a notable award, the WCCA's have more categories than the Oscars (really), and so many are nominated every year, it's meaningless. Just because it was nominated once for a web award with no ceremony (they just gather up votes in an online poll then post the results) doesn't mean that it's more notable/popular/better sourced than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Having one nomination puts it up with those big hitting websites such as Psychic Dyslexia Institute, Bikeeni 2000 and The Tenth Life of Pishio the Cat . This comic has no other reliable third party sources, has not achieved great popularity as seen by its Alexa rank and pretty much all the information is sourced from the website itself. We should not have slacker inclusion guidelines for webcomics over other web content. - Hahnchen 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominating this for a third time is a completely pointless waste of energy and time. Folks who vote to keep don't need "arguments that ... hold much weight"; you're the one making the affirmative attempt to delete it so it's you that has to convince everyone else. Xihr 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The last nomination ended up a no consensus with the one before that being to delete. I don't think it'll hurt bringing the article through another AFD, especially if it gets a wider participation. The last AFD was pretty close and the closing admin was asked for a closer look. - Hahnchen 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Folks that vote to keep don't need arguments"? Sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to reply to that without violating WP:NPA. Folks that vote to keep damn well need to explain why they believe the article meets Wikipedia policy. — Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haelth, I think we can agree that the article is quite good. The subject itself seems to be the problem. I also think that the value of the very first nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) has been quite exagerated don't you agree? There were only five users interrested at that time and the article was nominated just 14 days ! after being created, it never had enough time to evolve yet. Flamarande 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well done article on a webcomic which seems notable to me (from reading the prior nominations). And I didn't masturbate into a sock last night! InvictaHOG 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good article, it looks like a good comic, but can someone explain to me how this comic meets WP:WEB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:DejahThoris (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I don't think the case has been adequately made that the Alexa rankings for Outsider don't demonstrate a notable webcomic. I have not seen any guidelines that quantify what sort of traffic ranking qualifies as notable. Previous comparisons with traffic rankings for Penny Arcade and Megatokyo don't seem very appropriate; I don't know whether a webcomic must be among the four or five most popular in the world to be considered "notable", but in any event comparing the traffic numbers of a daily or thrice-weekly comic strip with those of a weekly (or less) long form comic doesn't seem to be a very good basis for judgment. An informal survey of long-form, weekly-or-less updated comics with current Wikipedia articles produced this general range of Alexa numbers:
Errant Story: 70,000
Flipside: 74,000
Demonology 101: 103,000
Alpha Shade: 116,000
ModernTales (anthology): 250,000
Outsider: 371,000
9th Elsewhere: 411,000
Girlamatic (anthology): 476,381
Polymer City Chronicles: 493,000
Lowbright/Derek Kirk Kim: 614,000
Return to Sender: 625,000
Nowhere Girl: 834,000
Leisure Town: 870,000
This list is by no means exhaustive. (As a disclaimer, I am the author of the comic in question.) - AriochIV 02:57 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have always maintained that the standards for webcomic inclusion have been incredibly lax, and that they seem to be treated through rose tinted spectacles in comparison to other websites. There is an absolute shedload of webcomics on my watchlist which have Alexa ranks like the ones you quote and should be deleted. Encyclopedia Dramatica had a rank of around 8000 I think, Final Fantasy Shrine has a rank in the top 10,000 also. They were both deleted. Barring the sci-fi web cartoonist's choice award nomination, there have been no reliable sources or professional third party reviews or critical commentary on your work. I cannot imagine any other set of websites outside of webcomics in which the claim that an Alexa rank of 370,000 makes it notable would be used as an argument for keep. The Alexa rank wasn't even the main point of this nomination. - Hahnchen 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made no claim of any kind as to the notability of the comic, only questioned your criteria on the judgement of traffic rankings. I thank you for your clarification. - AriochIV 03:42 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't the main point of the nomination but you sure had to use it, conselour. What rank would be acceptable? If you use it against it, there surely exist a rank which satisfies you. Flamarande 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - No reliable secondary sources of information regarding the notability of this. Doesn't meet WP:WEB at all. For what its worth, I would've closed the previous AFD as delete, due to complete lack of arguments based on WP policy/guidelines and instead stuff like "the comic clearly exists and has some history". I'm actually busting out the "strong" delete on this one, which I haven't done in awhile. Wickethewok 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I find the fact that the WP:WEB classifications as being incredibly short sighted and that such criteria will create false positives and false negatives all over the place if used as criteria for deletion in the particular case of webcomics. If a webcomic publishes their material in paperback form, and opens their own personal bookshop out of their garage, they immediately qualify as they have an outside source(their publisher). Why should a site suddenly be better because the owner decides to shell out money to publish? A webcomic is a peice of fiction, not fact, and I think after scrutinizing the INTENT of the rules in question, that this webcomic is sufficient to warrent a wiki article. I do agree that webcomics are a dime a dozen, but *any* award from any organization (whether web derived or not) therefore implies quality of work simply because winners had to compete against hundreds or thousands of similarly themed works. Just troll through the latest comic ranking sites like buzzcomics and see how many exist. But I ask you to think, go wiki some webcomics like inverloch, earthsong, no need for bushido, look at their pages, and think about why all of these shouldn't deserve to have a wiki page. If you think that they shouldn't, than why are ANY fictional works presented herein? I think the time has long passed that having a paperback published copy of your fictional work somehow makes the work more immortal. I'll finish up with some counterpoint aimed at Hahnchen. Reliable sources I quote : "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them." This is a work of fiction, the author's word is final, hence it is no different than the lord of the rings or any other published non-fiction work. Another point, because we are to consider this source just as we would if it were published in another medium, why are we even talking about alexa rankings as we certainly do not consider how many copies were printed, or how widly circulated or translated a particular book is. Addiitonally I would question your criteria for "well known" award, as I think it is very well known within the commuity it serves (i.e. those who read webcomics). The point of the rules is to keep fradulent works out, to keep facts close to reality etc. That is the spirit I see behind the rules being sited, and that is why I find that works such as webcomics break that mold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs)
    • Do you even know what a reliable source is? The difference between this webcomic and Lord of the Rings is that in one case, we are taking the author's word for every claim, and in the other case, there are thousands of other people who have intently scrutinised every claim, checked every fact, and published their own findings independently! A reliable source, whether online or offline is necessarily and inherently a secondary source, and that completely and utterly rules out any author whatsoever as a reliable source on their own work. If Shakespeare himself had a website about his plays, we would not be able to cite it as a source! How much less, then, can we have an article about a lesser author that doesn't cite adequate sources? — Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is the "reliability" even in question, it is a work of FICTION the author is the sole person responsible for it. Are we going to eliminate Lucas's early Star Wars films because the commentary on it by people before the rereleases are now moot as he changed things around? I fail to see how external commentary makes a work of fiction any more or less reasonable as a wikipedia article.
  • Strong Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, right? And it's the only encyclopedia that 'records' the Internet. This is information about a lasting place on the Internet. More, it's about a carefully, extensively and deliberatly crafted place on the Internet. I would love for, one day, to have Wikipedia have an entry for /every/ Webcomic; atleast enough to know what it is and some review quotations. Why? Because it's information. Usefull information

. Quite frankly, I think it's notable simple because it very deliberately exists (as can be seen in the effort of world and art creation), and has existed for a long enough time that I'm very certain it will continue to exist for a good long time. Summarize: Information is usefull; content has deliberatly existed and shows all signs that it will continue to do so. Narfanator 3:26 AM EST August 23 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.93.7 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete: This is a signed "vote." The comic does not pass WEB. The presence of a Wikipedia article does not make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. This is a question about how likely it is that an educated but casual web user will have heard of this comic and need it explained to him or her. No outside references or external contexts. Geogre 12:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the purpose were to explain things that casual web users will have heard of, explain to me why you bother to have a page for CVD? I highly doubt that anyone without a degree in materials engineering (or related fields) would care at all about such a specific materials processing method. I also put forth that such a specific subset of the industrially competent enough nations to actually have CVD technologies hardly qualifies as a casual web user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete per Geogre and Wickethewok. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of websites or comics, and as such synopses of webcomics - completely regardless of their popularity or "notability" - fall outside our scope, and should not be included. Comixpedia exists for a reason, folks. — Haeleth Talk 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that wikipedia should use external reasons such as "comixpedia exists for a 'reason'" as why even have wikipedia exist. There are encyclopedia, and countless volumes of books that contain the same information, and some would say more accurately. I'd say keep your arguments germane, I don't think the existance of external information sources for the same material is relevant, as such an argument nullifies all that wikipedia stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This isn't a directory of comics. Not every comic deserves a page on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This kind of synopsis / treatment is outside the scope of wikipedia. Delete as per above and WEB --Amists 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources, no credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Let's try to be honest. The article by itself is fine, but the subject fails at WP:WEB which seems to be the main argument against it. WP:WEB is a notability criteria guideline, reading Wikipedia:Notability I found the following: "There is no official policy on notability". This seems to be a little akward to me. If there is no official notabilty policy how can you use it as your main argument for the deletion of this article? Flamarande 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It at least earned some minor award. Leuko 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable comic. WP standards of encyclopedic notability are ill-defined at best, and at worst are meaninglessly applied at random. RedPenguin 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable comic. Bibliomaniac15 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This webcomic does not satisify WP:WEB, which is the guidelines many editors here agree on a notability for websites. That means, somewhere in the article must provide citations to reliable sources which have already discussed and verified this webcomic. It could be a traditional media outlet, or a well known web award, or other standards as detailed in WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources and per excellent argument by danntm. Zunaid 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If any webcomic is allowed to be showed on the wikipedia then there is no reason that Outsider or any other webcomic should not be showed as well. 82.48.77.128 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per danntm, unfortunately. The comic itself is very pretty, and the article is well written. However, no published sources have written about it. Bring it back when it's famous. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing the various points made above. Eusebeus 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being nominated for an obscure award (and not winning) does not make something notable. Fails WP:WEB. Kafziel 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB per Wickthewok. Sandstein 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. Bring it back when there's indpendent coverage of it as per AnonEMouse. Fairsing 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per danntm: WP:WEB might be a guideline but WP:V is policy. Until someone who might be considered a reliable source writes about this, it has no place on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how WP:V has any application to a work of fiction, particularly one which exists in its entirety on the web page in question. I don't think the issue is about the accuracy of the information in the article. Ariochiv 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't you notice that the same person nominated this article for deletion 3 separate times? This WP:WEB argument appeared only in this nomination, and I am even unsure if it is truly legit: There is no official policy on notability (somehow noone is willing to explain it above). Flamarande 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously, I thought the whole point of wikipedia was that if you want to know something, you go to wikipedia to get infomation on it. If some guy hears about a webcomic called Outsider but is worried it might be about Furry Satanic Porn, shouldn't he be able to just read the wikipedia article to learn about it? Heck, a wikipedia article could lead to it growing in popularity.--65.9.140.240 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very common misconception, but no - that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is meant to collect information from secondary sources about notable topics. There are standards for inclusion as well as standards for sources. If a subject isn't notable, it's not Wikipedia's job to try to make it notable. Kafziel 00:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has survived two AfDs, that should be reason enough. There are proper channels to go down to overturn a delete decision. Re-AfDing isn't it. Abstain I stand corrected. Mallanox 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it didn't. The consensus of the first one was to delete, and the second one was no consensus. There has never been a consensus to keep this. That's all beside the point anyway, since the results of previous AfDs don't have any bearing on the previous one as long as it was nominated in good faith. More than a month has passed since the last one closed; there's nothing wrong with re-nominating it now. Kafziel 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the spirit of fairness please notice that the "mighty" consensus of the first nomination was achieved with 5 users, two deletes, one abstained, and the other two users didn't vote at all. Flamarande 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who said "mighty"? I just said that there has never been a consensus to keep this article, so this discussion is valid and the nomination was made in good faith. I didn't mean that this should be deleted because of past votes any more than it should be kept because of past votes. Past results shouldn't be used as footing for current debates; an AfD should be based on the article, not the article's history. Kafziel 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Also, per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This article is not supported by reputable third-party sources, nor does it assert any historical significance for its topic, therefore it does not meet our official content policies. -- Dragonfiend 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. The subject of the article is a webcomic. If someone links the statements of the article to the proper page of the comic will that be considered a proper source? Flamarande 23:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the problem with the folks here who try to use WP:V on AfD. Verifiability, while an official policy, doesn't really matter in this case. We all know the comic exists. The question is whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion, the standards for which are only guidelines. This discussion is intended to decide its notability, not its verifiability. The information is obviously verifiable, but if consensus holds that the subject is non-notable then it's pointless to add sources. Kafziel 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In response to Flamarande, no, linking to the website will not satisfy our content policies. First, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but a website is not a third-party source for an encyclopedia article about itself. Second, WP:NOT requires website articles contain info on "achievements, impact or historical significance," not simply descriptions of the website. Anything that is actually an achievement or of historical significance will be covered by third-party sources. To Kafziel, I'll point out that that this article is not "obviously verifiable" in the sense of our Verifiability policy. That is, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Nothing in this article has been published by a reliable and reputable source. -- Dragonfiend 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bukalders

A genealogy entry with the barest of assertions of notability, if any. I was tempted to speedy, but decided to prod instead. Prod was removed by original author who has not edited since. Google does not provide additional insight on potentially famous Bukalderses. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Hatter Day

This is a made-up holiday, without notability. Google results turn up mirror sites and personal web pages. It's certainly not an official holiday anywhere I could find. The sources used in the article are from personal home pages - not the type of sources that satisfy WP:V. Given that this is an encyclopedia, I don't think it should be used to promote nonsense. Rklawton 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. — FireFox (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2006

Todd Albertson

There are a lot of claims made about this person. Filmmaker: well, a 10 minute short from an LA film festival, a documentary also from a film festival, and a full-length movie, starring two people which have never stared in any other movie. Author His book The Gods of Business is apparently unpublished; it is not listed at Amazon, B&N, Books in Print, or the Library of Congress. Founder of the charity God Farm. Except that the God Farm web site says it isn't up and running yet. All the references are to sites he owns or to anonymous glowing reviews at IMDB. None of the other claims can be backed up by reliable sources. Great self-promotion, not so great for this encyclopedia.

Also nominating:

  • The Gods of Business Has a very pretty web site, but is not listed in Amazon, Borders, Books in Print, or the Library of Congress. Wishful thinking at best; wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
  • The proverb A 10-minute film by Todd Albertson (see above). No coverage in Lexis/Nexis entertainment reporting. Not for sale anywhere. For sale at Amazon as a self-published DVD. ( Possibly shown at one film festival. Only references are the film's web site and IMDB. Like all Todd's projects, tagged with a false {{wikiquote}} tag. Like all Todd's projects, a very pretty article with infoboxes and everything. Non-notable and not verifiable.
  • Soliloquy movie No coverage in Lexis/Nexis entertainment reporting. Not for sale anywhere. Stars two people who have never been in any other film. Possibly shown at one film festival. Only references are the film's web site and IMDB.
  • Sidewalk soldiers A documentary produced, written and directed by Todd. No coverage in Lexis/Nexis entertainment reporting. Not for sale anywhere. Possibly shown at one film festival. Only references are the film's web site and IMDB.

Note that several speedy and prod tags have been removed by different redlinked users and/or IP addresses, so expect someone to be watching out for Todd. All in all, a very sophisticated walled garden. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done that before. I'll try to fix it up. Sometimes multiple noms get dinged though. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I combined them. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say delete them all. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, the auxiliary pages (the book and the movies) should be deleted. I could imagine that someone would make a case that Albertson could have a very short article about him which mentions these works, but I don't see it passing the bar for WP:BIO. As nom says, this guy is a great self-promoter, but that's all. Again, delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Aspiring filmmaker and author who clearly hasn't yet made it in either. Fan-1967 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this and the linked articles. Looks like he wrote the entire thing himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outside Center (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all per nom. Thatcher definitely did his research. -- Kicking222 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment The Albertson main page lists a dozen foreign-language WPs with Todd Albertson articles; none actually do. Whether this was just to make his page look even fancier, or whether someone actually had the intention of making these articles, remains to be seen. -- Kicking222 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom ST47 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete each as the article bears the burden of proof. A very young person with ambitions is likely to promote himself, and we should not be included in those plans. It's awful that we have to prove conclusively that there is no evidence for the subjects, but the one thing to add is that IMDB has never heard of the film maker, either. Geogre 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Albertson (weakly) as fundamentally unverifiable other than from his own website. He gets 250 unique Googles, which is about the same as I get and is rather implausible given the CV presented in the article. Strong delete of the balance, which give every appearance of vanispamcruftisement. The involvement of an interlocking circle of single purpose accounts makes this pretty much a certainty. Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Leuko 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a bunch of...!$!@# are the comments of the estemed contributors to this thrred. I don't know this guy, but I did design his book cover and I delt with the publisher and the webmaster not him. I don't care whether you delete him or not and he probabaly doesn't either since wikipedia is so slanted and unreliable anyway. I just looked at these comments and am disgusted with the entire process. You guys make the Bush Administration dealing with Hurricane Katrina seem smart! But as thatcher would say "so expect someone to be watching out for Todd." There is no way Albertson wrote his own bio, he didn't even want his picture or bio on the book cover. If he wrote his bio, why wouldn't he have the same stuff on his websites or link to wikipediua? It doesn't make sense to me as he hardly says anything about himself on his sites. Someone who wrote their own bio would have a link and say something like "Wikipedia now recognizes my expertise. Go to this link to see for yourself." Check your facts before you say crap about somebody. I hope you end up getting sued for defamation. For example, his website clearly says that his book isn't published until the Fall and you can't pre-order until October, thus it wouldn't be listed for sale yet nor would it be in the LOC. DA! Someone said that his 10 minute film isn't for sale and there is a link to on his website that takes you amazon. Someone else said only imdB verifies his films. imdb is far more difficult to to get into than wikipedia as they check stuff ahead of time and don't allow annonymous contributors. Instead of talking all this crap and acting like idiots, why don't you contact him, there's a link on his website, and ask him. You don't verify any information submitted to wikipedia except when you think someone is self-promoting. What if an ex-wife or disgruntled employee or stalker wrote this stuff. What if it is 100% accurate and verifable? Grow up and act like adults. If you're going to fact check, then be professional about it, and don't sling mud. Freakin idiots! miss_pat 20:6, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In my nomination I did not link to the various relevant policies. Perhaps you would be interested in Verifiability, Notability, Biography and Reliable sources. Also what Wikipedia is not. For example, wikipedia generally does not have articles on things that do not exist. If and when the book is published, and if it otherwise meets the notability requirements for books, the article can be rewritten. Movies with very little audience and exposure generally do not meet notability guidelines. In the case of Todd himself, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and the importance of individuals must be independently verifiable (such as through newspaper articles about his achievements). Whether the article was written by an ex-wife and said bad things or written by himself and said good things, it would be a candidate for deletion because it can not be independently verified. On final comment, funny thing about his personal IMDB profile, it says it was submitted by "anonymous." Thatcher131 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cWe're not deleting Todd (just discussing deletion of the article about him) or slinging mud. To be listed, we need someone other than Todd, a reliable third party source to confirm these things he says he's done actually exist. - Mgm|(talk) 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. This guy really worked hard on all these pages. Delete 'em all Sparsefarce 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Them All and Response to Thatcher131!I don't know how to respond in-the same thread as Thatcher131, so I am posing this here. I apologize, but I've never done this before and don't have the time to learn a new markup language.
I apologize if I came across as a jerk earlier, but some of the comments didn't and still don't sound professional or objective, but rahter feel like a bunch of bullies ganging-up on someone and I find that unfair or plain old wrong. Nonetheless, I think all of these listings should be deleted too.
My reasons are differen't than Thatcher131's reasons. When I read these articles I don't find them flattering to Albertson at all. Nor do I think they are accurate. I do believe his websites are accurate and they don't say 99% of this stuff. So they should be deleted because no data is far better than bad data.
I also believe these articles should be deleted because I don't think the fact checkers are objective and probably not qualified to fact check. Most of these comments are nasty personal attacks. For example, he's a wannabe or this guy really worked hard on creating the phony websites. Again, they were not written objectively by professionals and I question the competency and motives of the contributor.
For example after I correccted Thatcher131 on a few of his obvious mistakes, he changed the verbage to read that his DVD was self-published. His Proverb was publised by CustomFlix. They are same people who publish 60 Minutes, A&E, NBC among lots of other "big boys." The company is owned by amazon and very legitimate. Saying "self published" makes it sound like he is shipping VHS copies out of his garage. Then Thatcher131 says, in a "I told you so" tone, that his imdb biography is written by anonymous. WOW!!!!! 95% of imdb's bios are written by anonymous or just signed with someone's email address. You have to be a major A lister to have a big name attached to your bio. For example, Jim Belushi's bio is written by anonymous. Go to imdb and actually do some research and check this out instead of just talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Here's the point, I'm not a film expert, I'm just a graphics designer and I know this. Even a half way smart person who has done anything at all in the "industry" knows this. Thatcher131 and I suspect most people claiming to be experts here don't know this because they're not experts, they're not even smart, they're wannabes. If they were experts, they'd be doing this for a living not living out some sort of fantasy by self-publishing on a free encylopedia.
Just so there is no confussion, I think all this articles should be deleted as well. And I also think that if wikipedia ever hopes to be taken seriously, you need to have some serious people running it. There are other models like dmoz that lets the average joe edit, but they do so under the supervision of qualified editors. This whole thread illustrates this perfectly in my mind.
Just my two cents. Have a nice day!
miss_pat 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — and delete the rest of the listings per nom. NN Dionyseus 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. I do not consider that Albertson nor his movies and book meet inclusion criteria. Sure, someone cared enough to put in all the effort in creating the pages to ensure inclusion on wikipedia (thus answers.com, shortopedia.com), and spamming the internet. In most of these cases, the information has been copied verbatim from one site to the next. Except that the wiki entry seems the most complete, including details about how he earned money by being a hacker, suggesting it could only have been autobiographical, as no independent sources can be found WP:V. His websites toddalbertson.com,1, thegodsofbusiness.com2, theproverbmovie.com3, none of which are linked to anything, but score Ghits when searching for "Todd Albertson". I personally don't consider imdb entries necessarily as criteria for judging notability. Even if there's an entry at imdb, editors need to check qualitatively whether the global achievements of the subject meet wiki's criteria by looking for other corroborating sources. Wikipedia will only be unreliable if people continue to post nonsense, spam and entries of non-notable people or organisations and if facts are not correctly checked. Ohconfucius 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DELETE IT ALL My name is Todd Albertson and I am the subject of this discussion. If there are any doubts as to my identity, I created this account and verified it using an email address at my domain toddalbertson.com.
I was not aware that there was a Wikipedia article about me, let alone 5 of them until “Miss_Pat” brought this matter to my attention a few hours ago. I have neither written nor commissioned nor asked nor approved nor authorized anyone to create, modify, or edit the articles entitled Todd Albertson, The Gods of Business, Soliloquy movie, The Proverb movie, and/or Sidewalk Soldiers. Had I created these articles, they would have been far more polished and professional in appearance and content than they are now.
Some of the information in these articles is correct and verifiable. That information appears to be directly stolen from my websites verbatim in violation of US and International copyright laws. The rest of the information is completely erroneous and/or taken out of context and is malicious and damaging. Therefore I have already contacted Wikipedia's copyright violation department and asked this information be removed immediately because of the copyright infringement. Additionally, I have contacted the Wikipedia info team and asked them to remove the libelous portions of these article, i.e. - the remainder of garbage.
I have no desire to be listed in Wikipedia. To be listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I am not, is an honor. I am not of the opinion that being listed in Wikipedia is any sort of "badge of honor”. It is more on the order of being mentioned on someone’s MySpace blog.
Moreover, I am outraged at how easy it is to add and create erroneous and libelous information without someone verifying it first. To put the burden on an individual to find out that this erroneous information exists is not the correct way a professional organization should conduct business. Some of these articles are over a year old and went unnoticed. There are some very serious and alarming errors in the Wikipedia editing process.Toddalbertson 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are examples of subjects who do not wish, for whatever reason, to have a wiki article on them. So the issue is not whether the subject approves of their bio or whether they want to be listed. It is a question of, amongst other things, the subjects' notability, and verifiability of the information on the subject. Ohconfucius 05:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gods of Business Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The proverb Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soliloquy movie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidewalk soldiers

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting Wanderers

This Ragnarok Online fancomic can be seen here. The Alexa rank is wholely unimpressive at 800,000 and looking at the Googles for "everlasting wanderers seems to show more hits for a Ragnarok Online mp3 or soundtrack of some sort then for the webcomic. Also note that Google shows a lack of third party sources, however there are some foreign language links which I couldn't check out. - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete~!!!!-Its a good comic to me so far...and probably a lot of other people! >_< Why delete it if just for fun??? Or just for apathetic boredom? There's not that many hosting sites that display comics like Spinny's ;_; It would be really disappointing to see it disappear~after all the hard work Spinny did! Some of my friends saw Spinny's work and was really surprised. They don't know that much people that could draw that good and actually post it online for everyone to see and enjoy. Everlasting Wanderers deserves a wiki because its been a comic since 2 years ago. Ok, that didn't make much sense...but this comic was created by a very hardworking person, Spinny. A wonderful artist who posts comics online so everyone could read it. And now there's a wiki for Everlasting Wanderers. Why are people opposing it? Just because it isn't in the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that it has to have something to do with world views, etc. Everyone has their own opinions from what they see in daily life. Hopefully some people understand what I'm trying to say. >w<" xoxo Chibi =] 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete- Using Alexa as a gauge to rank webcomics is not an accurate gauge. Many comic hosting sites, such as Comic Genesis and Smack Jeeves get blanket Alexa rankings for the domain itself, while their individual comics may not necessarily receive the listed high traffic. Furthermore, while there may be only 95,000 google hits for Everlasting Wanderers, the top hits are obviously the fancomic and related information. Fans of Everlasting Wanderers also know it goes by the shortened name "Everwander, which net a few thousand more hits that are almost entirely dedicated to Everlasting Wanderers. If you utilize only Google hits and Alexa rankings, The Lounge piggybacks from Comicgenesis.com's Alexa ranking, and obviously does not share the majority of google hits from the rather generic title, yet it (and more like it) would be allowed to maintain a wikipedia entry. If you mark Everlasting Wanderers for deletion based on these two criteria, you are being unfair and discriminatory, simply because there are many other webcomics in the same situation, but happen to be hosted on the correct domain to provide an aggregate Alexa rating. If Wikipedia is going to crack down because of the WP:WEB requirements, that's fine. However, if Wikipedia does so, it should affect *all* offenders, and not just this one. Hoorayforicecream 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete- This article is not damaging anyone. The author seems happy to have this article here. Your point to delete this are... weak. There're another fancomics here, so... why delete this? - Katsurina Hinagami 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete- I feel that the argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very weak one. Unless it can be proven that this page violates any of Wikipedia's rules, or that it can be treated differently from the hundreds of other webcomic pages currently on Wikipedia, this page should not be deleted. - Winter04 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very strong one. As this is Internet-based content, a lack of Google hits or a low Alexa rank shows that there may not be enough interest in the webcomic for external independent sources to write about it. Wikipedia requires all information in articles to be verifiable from external reliable sources. Unless it can be proven that this webcomic has been mentioned in multiple such reliable sources, this page should be deleted. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 11:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising for a non-encyclopedic topic. Geogre 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hahnchen and Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't fulfill webcomic guidelines from WP:WEB. - Mgm|(talk) 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I would like to point that the format for this page is similar to how almost every other webcomic page is built, so I fail to see how this can be considered "non-encyclopedic content". Also, the page is not forcing anybody to read the comic or telling readers that it is the best comic in the universe. It's simply there for people who want to read up on it. Winter04 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the comic's title was based off of the game's soundtrack so i don't find it suprising that the soundtrack would have a majority of the google hits. but the fact that the comic itself is at the top of the results should count for something69.109.114.249 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 20:48 23 august 2006 (pst)[reply]
  • Comment- I always thought of wikipedia as an online encyclopedic source where you could find *anything* you were interested in learning about (within legal reasons). Soleras 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete As others have said it's doing no harm and the reasons for deleting it seem fillwed with technicalities, inconsistencies and lack significant knowledge. If you don't like it, don't read it - but don't ruin what is a good resource for others who want to read about this comic. Additionally, I feel Soleras has made a very useful point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.101.104 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment ok, since when did webcomic follow strict restrictions, or have certain guideline that made them a webcomic? you people who try to make everything perfect, saying that this comic does not meet the guideline, or does not have much google hits or what not, ask a question to yourself, who are YOU to judge eh? are you perfect? are you SOOO smart that you must delete this small piece of work that few of the people enjoy as entertainment and as simple pleasure? And this about how this page is a non-encyclopedic? the page is providing information, isn't that enough? just providing information. As long as this comic is legal, it has every right to be on wiki just like the other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.79.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. The article itself outlines no sign of notability. Anyone can create a webcomic...it doesn't mean anyone deserves an encyclopedia entry about it. IrishGuy talk 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd also like to note that Hoorayforicecream's comments about pages like The Lounge need to be taken into heavy consideration. If we're going to nitpick the details, then we must nitpick the double standards. Soleras 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you do any research on the List of webcomics, you'll see a large number of comics listed that not only have extremely low Alexa ratings (over 2 million), but also fall under the same criteria. Furthermore, some webcomics can maintain a wiki entry simply by having met the WP:WEB standards at some point in the past, but have since stopped updating. Some have even maintained their wikipedia entries (such as Acid Reflux (webcomic))) for over a year. Acid Reflux was added to Wikipedia 3 years *after* it had stopped updating, and has not met any of the requirements for WP:WEB. Everlasting Wanderers' entry has existed less than three months, yet WP moves to strike it down now? That seems not only unduly harsh, but discriminatory. Hoorayforicecream 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nitpick? you people are going to nitpick on a webcomic? what kind of lives do you people have?!? and this webcomic deserves a wiki page as much as the other pages. If you people have any sense of pity, or guilt, you will leave this wiki page alone. If not, then our society is definitly heading the wrong way.
  • Comment If this is meant to satisfy the WP:WEB requirements for Notability, would there really be any difference in Notability if the author had posted this comic on Comic Genesis instead? That should satisfy the #3 requirement for Web Notability, despite nothing really changing. 66.77.144.8 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reply - This is just a reply to some of the comments raised. Comic Genesis does not imply notability, in fact, I do searches on wikipedia on for Comic Genesis domains to flag them for deletion. Having it on Comic Gen is just like having it on Geocities, absolutely meaningless. The reason there are a a literal shitload of entirely unnotable webcomics on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should keep them. My watchlist has around 70 webcomics, all which should be deleted, but I just haven't got round to them yet and very few others seem to nominate webcomics. I mean, here's just a small selection of the webcomic tripe on Wikipedia, Corner Pocket, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear, Insert Funn13 Here. By all means nominate them for deletion, they need it. - Hahnchen 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reply - Hahnchen, are you the one who determines what is notable and what is not? Did you create requirement #3 on the WP:WEB? Comic Genesis does exactly what Requirement #3 states. It provides an independent third party online publishing site for web works. Your opinion may be that Everlasting Wanderers, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear and whatever other comics are not notable and should therefore be purged from Wikipedia, but that is it. It is your opinion. The rules that Wikipedia have put forth regarding notability do not agree with you. Rather than mark entries for deletion that clearly meet the existing notability requirements, perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying to get the notability requirements themselves changed. Obviously, it is in need of amendment. But not only is it stupid to continue attempting to delete the Everlasting Wanderers entry by spitting in the face of the very rules you claim to be deleting them for, it is hypocritical. Hoorayforicecream 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is a difference between "being distributed" and being hosted on free web space. Criteria 3 on WP:WEB refers to cases like Little Gamers which is distributed by Custom PC magazine (as well as others). Some take this criteria to refer to all "keenspot" comics to be notable, although I myself to not subscribe to that school of thought. - Hahnchen 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Once again, this is your opinion. You may not think that something distributed or published by Comic Genesis is notable. You're entitled to your opinion. However, you do not speak directly for wikipedia. You are not the rule-maker. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's rules, you are enforcing your own interpretation of the rules, which may or may not be correct. Comic Genesis promotes the comics it hosts. It provides link exchanges and advertisements on a scale that the majority of free web hosting does not. These are all services that free web hosting lacks. Do I think the rule is wrong in this case? Sure. However, I would go about trying to fix things by changing the rule rather than enforce my own viewpoint on WP entries that may or may not conform to my own interpretation of the rules. As an individual user, you can state and pontificate, but you do not speak for everyone, especially when you are going against the rules as written. Read it yourself. "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.". Well known. Independent. Online Publisher. Yes, comic genesis falls under all of those terms. If you disagree, then change the rule.Hoorayforicecream 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you read Note #7 of Criteria 3 on WP:WEB, which states that "although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Since Comic Genesis is similar to both Geocities and Newgrounds in that anyone with a webcomic can be hosted on Comic Genesis, being hosted on Comic Genesis is considered trivial and thus does not satisfy Criteria 3. Also, Hahnchen doesn't seem to be enforcing anything (he isn't an admin so it isn't possible for him to), he is only offering his opinions to this debate, similar to what you have been doing.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, non-notable webcomic. Large amounts of sockpuppets don't really help the situation.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Zombie

Hockey Zombie is another webcomic for which there aren't any reliable third party sources, because this webcomic, found here is utterly unnotable. "Hockey Zombie" only gets 60 Google hits and fails to break the 100,000 mark on Alexa. Although the Xbox Street Fighter cartoon on the front page is pretty funny. - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unnotable?

Funny, since someone took the trouble of making a note of it.

Seriously, you should read what you type before you submit it for other people to read.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project DCK

Flash cartoon series with absolutely no claim to notability, seen here. Reliable sources? - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borganism

Non-notable, bordering on OR and neologism. Ironically, it has the move to Wiktionary template on it. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, consensus is clear even now. Just zis Guy you know? 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Truck (game)

Non-notable counter to the heavily-debated "The Game" silliness. Just created this summer, as this article admits. WarpstarRider 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onion diagram

Borderline nonsense TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa

NN Fox TV special, likely isn't worthy for inclusion in WP TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Throne (webcomic)

Non-notable webcomic that lacks verifiability and reliable sources. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was MERGE material into WWSB and recast this as a Redirct. Herostratus 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Almanac

Not notable local television programme. Displaced Brit 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_23&oldid=71290871"