Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 25

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ulysseshadd (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 25 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 24 August 26 >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfio Bonanno

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape holiday items

I believe that this Wiki is probably one of the most fancrufty in the RuneScape series. I nominate a Delete per WP:NOT, as this is not an in-game guide for RuneScape. Who wants to learn about what items were dropped in a game so many eons ago when the information can be found on the main site? This kind of information doesn't belong here.Makoto 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I didn't mean any implication to the contrary. Let me rephrase "and also because it breaches the fancruft warning" :) It's a nice article though so I hope it's get sent to another wiki. --kingboyk 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already merged by Hyenaste, and looking good, disregard above comment RE merging. QuagmireDog 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 deleted by Mailer Diablo. - Bobet 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Performance Events

This is a dog of an article. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. BlueValour 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; few ghits and amateur official site is further evidence of its inappropriateness for inclusion. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the google test outputs 2k hits but the vast majority are sites which use the term as a description of some type of events and are not reffering to the organization in question. There are also quite a few hits which are related to wikipedia and their mirrors. Therefore I believe that the article is nothing more than spam on an obscure organization which struggles to have merit on its own. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:51, 25 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 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Flexible Learning Framework

Seems like nothing but an advert to me. No useful information, just ad jargon. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:51, 25 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 08:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Emrys Smith

Unsourced vanity page. Was deleted by me as CSD A7, but after some more looking at it, I think the only thing making this article delete-worthy is a utter lack of sources. Please don't tag this as a repost. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some external links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't look more notable than an average academic, going by WP:PROF. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is lousy, but the Sunday Times ran this on 12/12/2004: "Swansea Institute senior lecturer and economics guru Dr Charles Smith is to lead an economics seminar in partnership with the Economics Editor of the Sunday Times. The training event will take place in Wakefield on February 23. Dr Smith has been asked to lead the seminar with Dr David Smith of the Sunday Times. "It is an honour and something which I am looking forward to," said Charles." If the Sunday Times thinks he is notable, I'm not going to argue with them. Uucp 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Given that the other leader will be an editor of the paper running the blurb, I read that more as advertising/boosterism by an involved party not as an evaluation by an independent source. GRBerry 01:46, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuli

I nominate this article for deletion. It was created about a year ago, however the name only gets 150 google hits [1], neither does "shuli": [2]. By all accounts he is a funny guy, but not notable in any way. juicifer 01:04, 25 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 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Robertson (Canadian politician)

OK, so he was elected in Etobicoke, a minor suburban GTA district. Atrian 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. fails WP:BIO in the literal sense, but has more notability than the average afd bio. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO for being merely an candidate as the highest archevement. If new (previously unknown) information about this person surfaces then I will be happy to reconsider. --WinHunter (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has already been a city councillor in Etobicoke (a former municipality which was merged into the new city of Toronto) and chair of the Etobicoke Board of Health. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Wiki consensus says elected (or formerly elected) city councillors in major cities such as Toronto are notable. He also would have received a significant amount of press coverage in his lifetime. He would therefore also pass WP:BIO under "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". CindyLooWho 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Was elected in Etobicoke pre-merger not Toronto. I've heard of him only cause I saw one of his signs near William Osler Health Centre, not because of press coverage -- Samir धर्म 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that his 13 years as Councillor ended a few years before the official merger doesn't mean anything to me. The six merged municipalities were all unofficially considered by GTA residents to be part of Toronto for decades before the actual merger. The spirit of the Wiki consensus is that "big city municipal councillors pass the WP:BIO test". He was a big city councillor - just as North York, Scarborough, (etc...) city councillors were. CindyLooWho 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What "wiki-consensus" are you talking about? If you mean WP:BIO, it says: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. are to be included. Not municipal councillors. If you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, no consensus was ever reached -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CindyLooWho is correct that actual AFD precedent has traditionally permitted city councillors of major metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, New York City, Chicago or San Francisco, while generally going against councillors in smaller cities. Precedent, of course, isn't the same thing as policy, so this isn't necessarily binding in all circumstances — and in this case, because pre-merger Etobicoke is in a bit of a grey area as effectively both a smaller city and Toronto at the same time, either precedent could be invoked with equal validity. That said, I'm personally more inclined to keep on the metropolitan precedent. Bearcat 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pandering for votes for the upcoming election! All it needs is the "I'm Dave Robertson and I've approved this message" tag at the bottom. Nice guy, but a ward councillor for Etobicoke is *not* notable. Yet. -- Samir धर्म 10:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Electioneering. Where's your objectivity gone???? The subject is no more than a politician of a minor conurbation, however you look at it. It's a major stretch to suggest that Etobicoke city council has the same status as Toronto municipal council, even though it is now merged into Toronto, a decade on. That was then and this is now. He may have generated press coverage, but its significance needs to be proven. Without press coverage, all politicians are dead. "Significant" per WP:BIO means "well above the average for a person in his position". Ohconfucius 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage by third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, unverifiable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although all opinions expressed here should be considered, I think it should be pointed out that there are 5 users here who can be identified as being from Canada and who would likely have a much, much greater understanding of what 'Etobicoke' really is, it's population size, the number of people that an Etobicoke city councillor would represent (the real deciding factor in my mind), and the city's pre and post-merger relationship to and within Toronto. Of those 5 users, the opinions expressed are currently 3 keeps and 2 deletes (one of those deletes being the nominator). BTW, I don't know the exact number of people that a former Etobicoke councillor would represent, but it would be in the tens of thousands - not anything like 1,000 which would be a 'small city' BIO-unworthy councillor in my opinion. CindyLooWho 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Wikipedia is a global creation. All articles should meet this standard and not be judged on some colloquial local standard. Suttungr 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To give a better idea, Etobicoke would have had over 320,000 citizens at the end of Robertson's era. If there were, say, 6 councillors (the same amount they have on the current Toronto city council), that would mean he was representing 53,333+ people. If there were 8 councillors, that would equal 40,000+ constituents. I doubt the old city of Etobicoke would have had more councillors than that (if anyone has the actual number let me know). Combined with the city's officially-unofficial position within Toronto, those are big city level representation numbers that I think qualify for keep under AFD precedent. CindyLooWho 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is possible that there may be a partisan interest in the Canadian votes ;-). I don't think the save/delete debate should hinge purely on the numbers of people represented, as this ignores the electoral system in place, and also the qualitative element of the importance of minor conurbation vs a major city. Right now he is a minor figure, but it would be a lot more difficult to deny the subject a page should he win his contested seat. Ohconfucius 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Samir is right in that, on the municipal level, Canadian politicians do not run under a party banner. However, many politicians do have a known history supporting one or another federal/provincial party as does this one (a fact that I only know from reading his Wiki page). I'd just like to point out that I live in Toronto but not in Etobicoke, I do not know Robertson personally and I am neither a supporter or a non-supporter of the party that he supports outside of the municipal level. I am voting for keep here based on unbiased grounds so if there is a "partisan interest in the Canadian votes" its not coming from me. Also, I never said that 'number of people represented' was the only factor. It is a deciding factor for me because, as someone who lives here, I already know that the former city of Etobicoke was (for an intents and purposes) the city of Toronto (so he already meets the 'big city' criteria in my mind). Pre-merger, 70% of all city services (police, ambulance, transit, etc) in Etobicoke were provided through Toronto. Suttungr, my judgement is not based on some "colloquial local standard". Having City of Toronto police and ambulances on your streets and TTC busses on your streets (along with a TTC subway line below them) means you live in Toronto. Etobicoke was far more Toronto than it was Etobicoke and an Etobicoke city councillor would, in a way, be just as much a Toronto city councillor as they would have a degree of power over those "Toronto"-wide services. CindyLooWho 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to your reference to voters you identified as Canadian - these being somehow worth more than non-Canadian votes. Wikipedia votes are co-equal, by my count it's 8-3 in favour of deletion (Strong keep, doesn't count as double). That being said, none of your points has anything to do with David Robertson. Let the article stand (or fall) on his merits, not on the relative importance of Etobicoke. Suttungr 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I didn't count 'strong keep' as double. 2. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not necessarily win. If 5 people say delete and back it up with poor or no reasoning and 1 person says keep and backs it up with very solid reasoning, keep can "pass". Regardless, as AFD precedent has already said that 'big city' councillors "pass" and should not be deleted, that is what I am basing my case on. I believe non-Canadians are very unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of Etobicoke/Toronto to know that Etobicoke is and was part of Toronto (a big city) and therefore, as a past concillor, the Robertson page passes under AFD precedent without needing to provide any more citation of notability regarding Robertson as an individual. Also keep in mind that AfD etiquette suggests Wikipedians should "consider not participating in a AfD discussion if a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Although the issue might look clear cut to non-Canadians, I have pointed out that the people who presumably have stronger knowledge of the specific subject matter (not just general AfD policy as everyone here has) generally find this page to be in a very grey area re: deletion policy and currently are slightly supporting 'keep' over 'delete'. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. CindyLooWho 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Ohconfucius, remove article now, restore when he becomes a (current) Toronto councillor, if ever. Suttungr 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he's on Council, then reconsider a new article. Far as I'm concerned, candidates for any position who aren't already in one should not have articles, unless they have another reason for notability. Even after election, I have issues with anyone but the mayors of major metropolitan areas having articles, but that's just me. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 29 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 G1. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erfyl

Total hoax; no visible relevant ghits, no images can be found. A real animal would have both. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:08, 25 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 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Vaughan

NZ newscaster allegedly dogged by paedophilia scandals. Tagged as db-attack, but I thought it'd be reasonable to bring it here for a consensus, since it lists "references". Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be still working in New Zealand, and I'm not seeing anything on this on the internet.--Limegreen 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten without unsubstantiated allegations. He is notable enough to warrant an article. The New Zealand Herald reported on 14 February 2004 "Television New Zealand has reached an out of court settlement with its former senior journalist Rod Vaughan. Vaughan, made redundant last September after the axing of current affairs programme Assignment, said he took a personal grievance case against TVNZ which remained unresolved after mediation.

This week the state broadcaster offered him the settlement, which he accepted." Capitalistroadster 04:48, 25 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Systems

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through this combined AfD, determining the closure was improper. Please review the DRV before commenting here. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising for just another a non-notable software company. --Xrblsnggt 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This company has in excess of 2,300 software professionals (large for a software company), offices in India, USA, Europe and Japan and significant inward investment. It is providing technology for blue-chip companies such as Google. Plainly notable. I have copy-edited the crap out of the article and added some references. BlueValour 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was the nominator for this article in its previous AFD. At that time, the article did read like an ad, but now it just states the fact and also gives it some notability by being cited in Deloitte's report and also for developing software for Google --Ageo020 04:03, 25 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 no major consensus = keep — FireFox (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2006

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium

First Deletion Reason -- delete and merge into 9/11 Truth Movement, meetings subsection[3]. This gathering is not notable enough by itself to have a separate page. There's a place for it at the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium here[4]. I also question that we need 12 Alex Jones forks on Wikipedia, of which this is one. See Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, America Destroyed By Design, TerrorStorm, Information Clearing House, Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Police State 3. Morton devonshire 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of all the media coverage? rootology (T) 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the event wasn't notable as a part of 9/11 Truth Movement. It just doesn't need it's own article. A one or two paragraph blurb in anohter article that is covering the same stuff is sufficient. This is a form of '9/11 Truth Movement' spam. It will be cruft once everything dies down. Let's merge it now before it we have all these dead cruft forks. Let's put it this way: GWB takes a vacation every year. He makes speeches all across the country. They ALL receive considerable media attention (more than this conference) but they are included in Wikipedia in the many broader articles that cover the administration and Bush. We don't have articles that are "May 9 Bush Speech to Veterans in Kansas". It's too arbitrary a collection. Consolidate this into the broad overview of "9/11 Truth Movemment" and be done with it. --Tbeatty 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Important! --Prof.Thamm 08:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom and Tbeatty. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:41, 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 keep as a bad-faith nomination. It is clear that the nominator is a single-purpose account or sockpuppet, and the item in question appears to be notable. If an admin believes this should go forward, feel free to reopen it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cleo

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. DeleteLittleCleo 01:33, 25 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.--Andeh 02:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonship

Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. The band hasn't been featured in any reputable media, won any awards, released any albums on a major label, or gone on an international concert tour. No allmusic profile [6] and not a lot of relevant Google results [7]. Also nominating the following related articles:

--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all, main article tagged (and rest are just "see alsos" redirecting back to the main article), no assertion of notability. (Releasing a four-song demo and playing at local venues are not assertions of notability.) NawlinWiki 02:00, 25 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 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear blankets

Smells like a hoax? Get real it is an attempt at humor, I guess the author may not realize this is suppose to be a place for serious essays. Anyway it was funny. 9:19 PM EST

Smells distinctly of hoax material, alleged "Copertawrapaphobia" gets zero ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:48, 25 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 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monolith (Novel), and Terra War

Article is about a non-published novel. I am also nominating the author's other works in this AfD as well. The Author currently has a speedy tag on his article as he is an UNPUBLISHED author. Wildthing61476 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed The Gate from this AfD and will remove the tag now. Thanks for the change Dekimasu! Wildthing61476 12:06, 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. 1ne 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arte Mecco

At best, the non-notable style of a single artist. At worst a hoax. Rmhermen 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity/hoax article which is a pet project of some user. Google test outputs 237 hits, being the top result the wikipedia article itself and the following a stream of wiki articles. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NFT. "Art Mecco" scores zeeero relevant Ghits (outside wiki). Fewer than 25 relavent Ghits out of 581 for "Hugeaux", and the Ghits almost exclusively linked to that style. The Artist's style borrows heavily from Art Deco and Gustav Klimt, and has clearly also borrowed the "Art deco" moniker in order to create a new identity/category for his art. The artist appears to have the endorsement of the 'National Conference of Artists of New York' (3 relevantsites linking to) and the Art Deco society of Washington (about 10 relevant external sites linking to). The NCA is headed by Margaret T. Burrows, who appears notable enough her bio here. On the surface, the wiki article also seems to be a copyvio of this page, but its main author is infact User:Hugeaux, and who has no edits other than this article, so it also falls foul of WP:AUTO, and WP:V. I would conclude that neither the artist nor the style are notable. Ohconfucius 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS If someone know how to and cares, a proposal for deletion of wiktionary item of the same spelling would appear in order. Created by the same author. It has already been tagged "rfv'"Ohconfucius

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arte Mecco. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

  • Undelete. This is a nomination for undeletion. This article is not a hoax or an attempt to self promote. Thank you to all the editors who have help this article to look and appear better. Please continue your efforts. Arte Mecco is in its adolescent stage as with other genres of art throughout history (Art Deco, Cubism, Avant-Garde, etc.). It is recognized by several art associations and artists. Never in the history of art has an artist fully documented a concept which uses natural pigments and theories. This is the reason many viewers see the article on Arte Mecco as a cognitive method for explaining an art genre during their time and their research. A special thanks to the editor(s) who has change the name: History of Arte Mecco to Arte Mecco to make for better Wikipedia research. You are true troopers.Hugeaux 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not here as the promotional tool for an unnoteworthy 'artist'. Nunquam Dormio 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete include is an paster statement and earlier editor assisted in support of the article. It is as follow:Please remove the tags from the article. Thank you Khatru2 for directing me towards, Wikipedia:Autobiography for assistance. I hope that this statement within its confines shall validate the article, because as a reference it pretains to my purpose:

One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. As the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiograph64.12.116.66 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Hugeaux 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote only once. Thank you. Khatru2 23:40, 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 delete - although we might be able to use an article on virtual airlines in general. Do we have one? DS 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Virtual Airlines

nn webforum, alexa ranking of 4,490,720. And apparently they can't agree on what the name of the forum is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

timetables, route maps, anual reports and newspaper ads. I think that is a good website to learn about a great airline that is no longer flying. 19:03, August 27 2006 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, authors request Allow repost later if verifiability resolved. Shell babelfish 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rho Epsilon Zeta

15 ghits, therefore non-notable. Quote: although there is no proof that it exists, therefore unverifiable as well; delete (|-- UlTiMuS 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Verifiability is difficult--am still working on that. Feel free to delete for now... I can re-add it once I find a reliable source. nafisto 02:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Shell Kinney under CSD G7. BryanG(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamo's law

Violates WP:NOR (to which page author agrees) as well as WP:HOAX (the math is simply not right). Irongargoyle 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 16x18=288. Fan-1967 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now, call me a math major, but this is the stupidest damn thing I've ever seen. First of all, even if it wasn't made up, one should surely realize that this "law" being only for two-digit numbers makes no sense, as multiplying xxx3 by xxx4 will always result in xxxx2, no matter how many other digits are involved. In addition, this nonexistent law doesn't work for 6, as the terrible article states- 2x6=12, 4x6=24, 6x6=36, 8x6=48. I'm getting really worked up over this, but only because it's so idiotic. -- Kicking222 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, ok, i made a mistake, please delete it!

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia Liberation Movement / Army (SLM/A)

nn website, nn organization, copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 25 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 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of Geri

Nonexistant album with a "rumored" track listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 25 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. Mangojuicetalk 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United-SF

As per talk page, not verified, nor notable, and vanity article AndrewRT - Talk 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - United-SF was written in order to inform the public and to give an example of a groups and parties that are trying to organize. United-SF is a party I know in particular and its very active in the Somali Community in the Twin Cities here in Minnesota. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I think it should be removed as an example in the Somalia article as an example. I do not know how to verfiy this group actually exisits since they have not decided to create a website or something of that nature.

--Samantar Abdirisaq 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete — I'm not convinced the webpage is referring to the same group as the last two external links. They seem to be just one of many armed groups in control of the independent state of Somaliland but I can't find any information on them except that they're small and don't seem to have any significant news mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -- I am sure its not part of any Somaliland group. Actually I think the United-SF is part of a variety of new Somali Groups/Parties like Somali Social Union Party which is based over in Europe. I have decided to call one of the members of the United-SF here in Minnesota to contact him about the party. he told me they were still working but were not as active. Perharps we can use the Somali Social Union Party. I forgot to add, The Leader of the group, he told me, was a guy in Somalia named Samantar Jabar Ahmed --Samantar Abdirisaq 05:11, 17 August 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, Teke 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak keep being written by a supporter of the group does not make it vanity, and almost any armed political group is notible. Verifyibility is an issue, but their website is enough for now. --Musaabdulrashid 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A Google search of "United Somali Front" brings up several mentions of the organization in a variety of websites, but nothing in the news- probably due to Somalia not being big news in North America though. However, the organization certainly appears to be known around the world. --Wafulz 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be renamed to United Somali Front - who would look for United-SF? Eusebeus 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarify From what I can tell the United Somali Front is a completely different organisation from the United-SF. The former is an armed group based in Somaliland (which probably does deserve an article), the latter an unarmed group with nothing but a website which doesn't even name the leader! Thanks for doing the research, Samantar, but please remember the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy when it comes to wikipedia content. AndrewRT - Talk 20:28, 25 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 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spunky Dunker Donuts

Fails WP:CORP by about a light year. Fan-1967 03:07, 25 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 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Nicoletta &Stein

No concrete assertion of notability, no sources given. Reads like an advertisement as well. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:08, 25 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. Not notable and no assertion of notability as far as I can see. kingboyk 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Petersen

Article appears to claim notability, but further research can give no information on this person. Doing a search for Vogue and Flora Petersen turned up no hits. Previous tag removed, sending to AfD Wildthing61476 03:15, 25 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. - Bobet 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) ===Simona Fusco===Simona fusco is staring in a movie on SHowtime. Very notable. Been in many movies. Many magazine covers worldwide[reply]

Pretty, aspiring model? Yes. Notable enough yet for an article? No. Eusebeus 03:27, 25 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 as a copyright violation of a copyrighted web page. The article is a straight copy and paste of the "about" page on the company's own web site, which is copyrighted and not GFDL licensed. This application of Copyright Judo is stretching the copyright speedy deletion criterion slightly, as it might be argued that Staffoffshore.com (talk · contribs) was implicitly dual-licensing the text. But in order to have an encyclopaedia article about this subject we'd need to both completely rewrite the article from sources and move to the article a proper title. We might as well start from scratch without any concerns over copyright or corporate autobiography. Uncle G 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staffoffshore.com Offshore Staff Leasing

Standard corp advert article. No assertion of notability, and I see no need to try to find one in light of the completely spamish tone of this article. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:28, 25 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. - Bobet 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebShop 2.0

9k ghits, however almost none are in English and I couldn't find a single one that looked reputable. Therefore, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:41, 25 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 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray (Gaven)

Notability assertions everywhere, but none are up to WP:BIO. Article can't decide what it wants to be, and even if it were to be kept, it would need a complete rewrite. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray has recieved Centenary Medal (awarded by Federal Government), has streets named after him, and has demonstrated awards and services - how is this not a notable person? He's one of the most decorated non-military persons in the Gold Coast and Hinterland region. Search Hansard for citation in Parliament regarding his services. Has various monuments to him in stone and bronze in Studio Village/Helensvale region (Northern Gold Coast). I'll check the BIO requirements in a sec... Johnpf 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the WP:BIO policy, I find 61 links from Google on him ("Phil Gray" Helensvale), including links to all the major TV channels (7, 9MSN, ABC and 10) Newspaper articles from as far afield as Townsville and Newcastle (1500 and 800km away each - not everyone gets noticed that far from home!), Sydney newspapers (different State!). I didnt include his entire record in Education - he has been a major voice in policy and standar disation in Queensland over a 38 year period. He has impacted on the lives of at least 100,000 people directly, and about 6 million indirectly. I'd also point out that the WP:BIO tests are as follows:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field

Education and Community Service, awarded Centenary Medal, so is nationally recognised as notable, including by Federal Government of Australia

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage

in by-election last March 2006

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

for his work with Westfield Helensvale.

Google Test

as above, with specific search for '"Phil Gray" Helensvale'

I guess the issue is whether WP is a global resource or not. This man is important and notable to about a third of Australia's 6th largest city. I accept the point that the article is not well written, and it was something I was intending to rewrite over time. I didnt expect it to be put up for deletion within 3 hours though! Keep and Clean Johnpf 05:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if being like Mother Teresa was the standard there'd be what, 10 or 11 bios in wikipedia! Johnpf 11:39, 25 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 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Kits

A bike race of uncertain notability, no sources cited for its existance. Was speedied (improperly) by me as CSD A7, then re-created. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the only user voting keep needs to resort to cheap shots and bad analogies to make their case that means that they obviously having nothing worthwhile to offer to this debate. On a personal note I am positive that Jesus or Christianity would not have stopped their mission if an acient version of Wikipedia did not find them notibale at one point in time. --Edgelord 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having been witness to the creative and impressive planning and execution of the Tour de Kits I would argue that events like this do deserve to be where people can access and learn more about the feats of its participants. The Tour is a challenging adventure that can really only be described as a Journey for those who participate. It ultimately comes down to mixing the achievement of personal goals with the emotional and intellectual bonding between men and women of all backgrounds and beliefs. The participants listed are only a few of the many people who have participated in the event at various stages, sharing in the successes and travails of those biking. The Tour de Kits exemplifies the kinds of challenges that go beyond drunken nights with random acts of ridiculous behavious. The Tour de Kits is an impressively executed race at which only true athletic intellectuals will find themselves victorious. ~Tour Enthusiast~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.21.122 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Along with the notability and verfiability problems, I find it hard to keep an article of a subject whose defenders insist You need to give it time to grow into a beautiful flower. Wikipedia is supposed to list events that are already notable, not those that you think could be. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remind me not to be in Kits during the next time this event takes place, lest I wind up with puke on my shoes. *headshake* Pub crawls are not notable, kids. (Does this make me an editing Nazi? That'd just round out my week perfectly, that would.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just wanted to say that I didn't call you Nazi's I edited that comment to put the bullet in and it assigned it to me. I vote keep though. Eboli— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.182.195 (talk • contribs)

:Please not above user has already voted. This vote need to be disrgarded. --Edgelord 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The earlier comment was from a totally different IP. Eboli just tagged it as a Keep. I've updated the tag. Not that it matters. No way the article's going to be kept. Fan-1967 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Please disregard my previous comment. --Edgelord 17:55, 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 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Petersen

Non notable musician. Searching for him on google gives a lot of hits , none of them which are related to music or bands. searching [9] with the bass added to the query, turns up wiki and its mirrors. Ageo020 04:16, 25 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 deleted by User:MONGO as nonsense. BryanG(talk) 06:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain of a thousand foxes

Article on an event from an rpg claimed to be "the most epic event evar [sic] to happen there involving foxes." I have little doubt of that, but I'm not so sure about its meta-vulpine notability. Only two Google hits, both to the rpg forum [10]. I am not a gamer so I'll leave it to the community. Prod contested in body of article.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 25 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 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of World of Warcraft

Appears to violate WP:OR and cannot help but be a magnet for POV. This is not an article, it is a list of grievences. Indrian 04:34, 25 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 Deleted. Material copied from published survey and WP:OR.. Shell babelfish 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMPUTER USE AMONGST DOCTORS IN AFRICA

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of data abakharev 04:40, 25 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 applying Copyright Judo. The article is a straight copy of the company's own advertising blurb on its web site, which is "Copyright 2004 Itwerkz Global. All Right Reserved" [sic!] and not GFDL licensed. Uncle G 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITWERKZ GLOBAL (ASIA PASIFIC TRANING DIVISION)

Between the terrible title, formatting, and content, there are a handful of reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but for the sake of simplicity, delete as failing WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:39, 25 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 per Pagana's information on notability. Redirect lowercase to uppercase article. Tag for cleanup.. Shell babelfish 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar at tahoe

Developer flogging upcoming ski resort project. Plenty of facts, and perhaps it's notable in some way or could be but I just don't see it. Daniel Case 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Northstar at tahoe entry has been edited to address your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahoetracy (talk • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Seafood Centre

Ad, more or less, for Singaporean restaurant. Given that I had to click the linked mall to find the most basic fact in a business where location is so much, i.e. where it's located, I doubt that there is any notability about this place. Daniel Case 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is not a restaurant, it is a hawker centre, a rather unique cultural element in Singapore One of the better-known ones, might I add. 206.255.1.73 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to show evidence, you do. Daniel Case 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And which I did. It seems cosier being a deletionist, is it not? ;)--Huaiwei 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link one is simply a listing. The Sunday Times article is a different matter. But it seems to be about disputes between restaurant owners, not the center itself. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link one is an entry in the STB's website about the East Coast range of eateries as a tourism site. A country's tourism agency bothers to have one page just for one hawker centre (and not for most others). I would like to see you arguing the non-notability of small countries next, I suppose. The Sunday Times article talks about "disputes" between eateries in a very sought after location, even when rents where increased almost two-fold. You appear to ignore every other comment on the location in the entire article which repeatedly underscores its popularity and notability at lease in the local context and to tourists.--Huaiwei 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, please remember to assume good faith. Second, I repeat: link one is a listing. Listings cannot by themselves establish notability. As for the Times article, it has some promise there.
What would convince me is some citations from guidebooks saying "Visit this place ...", or writeups from food or travel writers outside Singapore. As it is, you're just asking us to take your word for things. Daniel Case 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope everyone may assume good faith here too. What kind of "guidebooks" will fit your expectations, Mr Case? I suppose Vitual Tourist [13] and Explore Holidays [14] are too low-end for your taste? The New York Times too cliche for consideration [15] (even thou it was quoted from Fodor's)? The Sydney Morning Herald probably arent culinary experts [16]? The folks from The Times got their taste buds all wrong when asking folks to go to this place for hosting a restaurant considered to be one of their best in 2006 [17]? I found all these links and more within four pages in google search. Do you intend not to lift a finger and do any research yourself, while wasting time for those who have to show notability even in a clear-cut case like this?--Huaiwei 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now these are the kind of refs that might establish this place as a notable tourist destination.
I would consider withdrawing the nom but for Huaiwei's attitude, particularly as expressed above. First, the burden is and always has been on those advocating keep to supply references supporting a claim to notability. Second, to complain about this is something I fully expect (and have gotten) from single-purpose accounts with no interest in Wikipedia beyond getting their article about some subject of dubious notability on, or people who make things up in school one day, but to see it from a veteran, established editor is particularly dismaying to me. It's conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian IMO.
Those who have been asked to supply sources in AfD discussions have earned respect by doing so without complaint. Here, instead, Huaiwei sulks resentfully and seems to be more interested in getting in anti-deletionist jabs than reaching a consensus, suplied refs notwithstanding. Daniel Case 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I'm not sure that's a helpful characterisation, even if true. I agree that someone who cares enough about this article ought to be adding the refs, true, but there's no need for anyone participating to be upset about the process, you, Huaiwei, anyone... I'll add them myself if I have time and no one beats me to it. Making an article useful and preservable is more important than proving a point. Sorry to pick on you alone as I think everyone could benefit from that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the references given to the article, it was just a quick cut and paste job so maybe they could be further improved. Many of the references I spot checked were one or two line mentions in an article about Singaporean cuisine reather than in depth articles about this facility, but the guide book entries are more comprehensive and focus on the facility. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Amists 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Huaiwei. —Sengkang 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, it's a popular tourist spot. I suggested once about bringing Jimbo there. --Vsion 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. - SpLoT 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the delete camp can see where Huaiwei is coming from. To locals, this is more than notable; it meets WP:CORP - and thus KEEP. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to Singapore as a tourist (although technically on business I did get some time to enjoy things) in 2005. Many many people told me I needed to go to ECSC to try the food there. That's anecdotal evidence and not admissable, but does suggest refs for notability are out there if one tries to find them. And Huaiwei has... I see above that Huaiwei has no less then 5 apparent references, some from very notable sources. Let's get those vetted (as more than brief mentions) and actually INTO the article (a pet peeve of mine is that info developed during the course of an AfD doesn't always make it) and then this clearly is a Keep. Note: Without any slight to the original nom, the original article was a delete, and the way it is now is STILL a delete, absent the adding of notability refs given above. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:58, 27 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 as failing WP:BIO.. Shell babelfish 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnis H. Venhuizen

An anonymous user listed this article on the AfD log but did not post an AfD notice on the page and could not have completed the nomination. I am just completing the nomination processs but not giving a recommendation at this time. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a student member of a state board of regents isn't notable; nothing else asserted. NawlinWiki 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If the BoR membership was an elected position, I'd vote for keep... but it's not. Irongargoyle 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the student member of the SD Board of Regents has as much power and responsibility as the other members. SD Board of Regents are responsible for a budget of $527 million dollars, compared to the total state budget of $3 billion. The regental system has 30,000 students and employs 5,000 people--that's half of South Dakota's state employees. For reference, the South Dakota Attorney General manages a budget of $21 million. Finally, the fact that not all the regents have yet had articles written does not mean that they are not significant - it means that no one has written an article yet.jaredwiki 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems to me that this guy is certainly as deserving of an article as this guy, or this one. Both of these gentlemen were Truman Scholars as well. One serves on the local county commission. The other works at a Venezuelan newspaper. My point is that, while not "famous" on a National scale, Mr. Venhuizen is certainly within the scope of an encyclopedia as large as this one. Additionally, South Dakota being a small state (in population) doesn't make her governing individuals any less important. Russvdw 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far below notability. Fails WP:BIO per no significant press coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for notability issues. I don't think winning a Truman scholarship makes you automatically notable (for the same reason that not all Rhodes scholars have articles). Being a student member on a state board of regents doesn't confer notability. The aggregate does not either -- Samir धर्म 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject adequately covered on South Dakota Board of Regents page. Does not seem worthy of additional space. ~Timberjim 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Late Registration. Shell babelfish 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Music

While a song from a notable album, it is not a single, nor does it hold any significant value to have its own article. Ted87 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Per nominator", basically meaning for the same reason as (the nominator)". --Ted87 20:35, 25 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:03Z

The Derek Tonin Show

Either a hoax or WP:NOT crystal balling. Take your pick. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:58, 25 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 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Correa

Speedy removed and replaced with hangon by article's subject and likely creator, bassist for unsigned band. Claims of importance to regional hardcore scene are not cited, nor anything else. But it wouldn't matter because nothing there indicates any WP-worthy notability, neither under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Daniel Case 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding

the band in question, since with three self-released CDs it fails WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 05:04, 25 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 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirit Shelat

Administrator with no claims to notability. Books mentioned in article are published by nn, probably vanity press. Article basically unchanged since July 2005. Hornplease 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Unchanged article for a year is no ground for justifying deletion. His latest book, "Mapping development" reviewed in The Hindu, a respected newspaper. If a one-time MLA or a high court judge is notable for purposes of WP, Kirit Shelat, given his experience of over 40 years in administration as an IAS officer and in authoring books would be notable enough. Also, the info appears to be verifiable. --Gurubrahma 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. As I noted below, he is not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat service officer. WE cannot assume that the thousands of state administrative officers across India are notable simply for serving out their careers. That his book is reviewed in the Hindu is not as indicative as it could be, because the book page of the Hindu relies on submitted rather than commissioned reviews. THe review was written by a former teacher at an Ahmedabad college, and is one of only two reviews by him. The book itself is not on record as being possessed by any library in the WorldCat system - an theres no systemic bias here, thousands of locally published Indian books turn up in academic libraries across the world - and is not available for sale at any major Indian online bookstore. He simply does not meet notability criteria, and is not a senior enough government official to be encyclopaedic. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of his book on development is the same as the publisher of his book on Yug Purush Swami Maharaj - and doesnt seem to have any record on the web of having published anything else. He's not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat Administrative Service officer, which means he has to do something more than serve his tenure to be as notable as an HC judge. However, if he's Narendra Modi's advisor, which has been added without citation to the article in the last few minutes, then he may- repeat may- pass over some bar of notability, as Modi himself is so very very encyclopaedic. (Indeed, some months I seem to have done nothing on WP but discuss things Modi may or may not have done.) Hornplease 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannjot find articles in either WP, but perhaps I am spelling his name incorrectly there. Hornplease
The books are not notable by most standards. A WorldCat search of libraries reveals no copies in participating institutions. THe fact that one was released by the CM of Gujarat does not in itself make the book notable, especially if the officer in question works in the CM's office. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason to suppose that the books are notable? Hornplease 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Only persons of Indian Administrative service can become Secretary, Energy Department. He may not have been a direct IAS recruit. He would have been conferred IAS Doctor Bruno 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the writer is mistaken. Secretaries of state-level departments do not have to be IAS. Hornplease 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hooray. Whatever that means. Hornplease 07:48, 30 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 (A6) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:00Z

WORMFACE

Protologism with unpromising Google results and nonexistent Wiktionary page. NFT as well. Daniel Case 05:09, 25 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. - Bobet 12:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Pathak

Very non-notable administrator, at the lowest level of the Indian Administrative Service. No claims to notability in the article or available through looking around a little.Hornplease 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District collectors are certainly not the lowest level of the IAS. In fact collectos are sp,e of the most powerful positions of the IAS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are neither the lowest level nor the highest level. Doctor Bruno 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is certainly the district collector of Mumbai. But it must be said, that the government's influence over public life is waning, so is the importance of district collectors. --Ageo020 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out [18] and [19] I am not able to understand the difference between these two discussions
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (A3) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:57Z

Christmascarnivals.com

Site is a spam hub, and certainly fails WP:WEB as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:14, 25 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. - Bobet 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Sauvé

Vanity entry, non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:15, 25 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 per discussion for failing notability and WP:V.. Shell babelfish 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Barr (Canadian military)

Non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article suggests he's done anything notable, other than be named as "designate commander" of CSOR. Why is it you specifically feel he is notable? Simply because he is in the Canadian Forces with a rank higher than captain? I thought the reason we had notability requirements was to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from having an article. Can you cite a US "equivalent" article you feel is on a par with this one?Michael DoroshTalk 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with the US military structure to know what the equivalent position is. NorthernThunder 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion. I meant can you cite an example of an article on a US officer such as the ones you listed as an example? You asked if we should delete similar US articles, but never gave an example of one. It is quite possible we should look at deleting them as well. Can you provide and example of one of the articles you were referring to?Michael DoroshTalk 01:30, 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 Merge to List of Wal-Mart brands. Shell babelfish 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Value

This article has been deleted twice before (see deletion log), and continues to be recreated. Request is to either outright delete, or merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 25 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Erxleben

Notability not proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dorosh (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 August 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hero

WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CVG. CSIN 05:28, 25 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 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-BANGI.COMmunity

nn website. spam. CSIN 05:30, 25 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 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Nicoletta & Stein LLP

WP:CORP, WP:NN. CSIN 05:31, 25 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 per discussion passes WP:CORP.. Shell babelfish 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Fencing Club

Delete. Not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. See also Talk:Dubai Fencing Club for ongoing notability discussion. Twisted86 05:22, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Swing

Needlessly technical and non-notable article. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and expand/make it more accessible if needed. The subject is notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:52Z
  • Delete - WP is not a "how to dance" guide. Apart from two mentions of its connection to Lindy hop, it is a list of dance steps which are seemingly original research. A mention in the Lindy hop article may be appropriate if cited. Yomanganitalk 12:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yomangani ST47 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - East Coast Swing was probably the most popular style of swing dance during the swing dance fad of the late 1990s, and it remains a staple in most U.S. dance studios. I would venture as far as to say that the large majority of people who learned swing dancing in the past couple of decades probably started out with East Coast Swing. That seems pretty notable to me. The article as it is written is very poor, but that's reason to improve it, not to delete it. --Cswrye 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article currently sucks, but the topic, East Coast Swing, is still a cornerstone of swing dancing around the world. The only reason to delete it would be to re-incarnate the article with a fresh start. Everyone who take swing or ballroom dance classes learns ECS, there should be a Wikipedia article on it (though, a better one than there is now).--Will.i.am 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The topic is valid and notable. --Elonka 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is this even under discussion? If it's a poor article then fix it, but deleting it would be seriously moronic given its popularity. Ninti 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As Cswrye already pointed out, nearly everyone who has learned any amount of swing in the past ten years started out by learning East Coast. This article is very notable to the social dance scene, it's sad to see this even under discussion. Utopianheaven 19:22, 31 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 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dellosso and Greenberg

Spam. nn. CSIN 05:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. WP:SNOW take this to the relevent talk pages, or try WP:RfC -Doc 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weber and German politics

This was an 11Kb section in the Max Weber article. The section was created when the article appeared on the Main Page in Dec 2004 and has grown over the years to this length. This section is part of the reason the article was brought to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber. Because the section was so big (and troublesome) I split it off onto its own article (where we can add whatever template tags we want without harming the feature article) and attached a link to it in the Max Weber#Sociology of politics and government section. I nominate the new article for deletion to ensure (a)it belongs as a separate article (b)it is not original research (I do see a thesis statement in there) (c)all the appropriate template tags are added (needs {{fact, {{citecheck}}, etc.) and (d)that it should exist at all.}} Maintain 05:31, 25 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. Shell babelfish 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology

2 ghits, so fails WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, I instead support a Move to Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt or some other official German name. That's what confused me. Apparently, almost nobody calls it the University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology and there is no need to translate the name for the purposes of the article title. Other then that, it seems like a good candidate for translation from the de -pedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, this is a public school, not a company! The quasi-official translation "university of applied science" for Fachhochschule is very unfortunate IMO because in German, a Fachhochschule is clearly distinct from a "Universität". It would probably be better to call it something like a "technical college". In any case, I think the article should be kept, but the title should be changed. It is completely unknown under this name in Austria! It should either be "Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt" or "University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt" (this is also how it is called on the English version of its website [23]). Siberl 11:06, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury 1 wrestling

A small wrestling promotion that simply isn't known enough to be on Wikipedia

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margalit Tsan'ani

The most notable ghit she gets is her myspace profile. Fails WP:MUSIC. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:00, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

പശു

Cow is a cow is a cow. Why do we need a special article on Malayan cows? abakharev 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title's in Malayalam script, so it's probably your browser (it should display as a collection of curly characters). BigHaz 09:09, 27 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Ausburn

Though a winner, Maggie has done nothing else signifigent in her outside life. Drew Daniel, season 5 winner, was also deleted even though he has a small acting career and thus is tchnically more significient. Comedy240 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep obviously. She was on a hit show with around 8 million viewers. She was on for the whole season. TV actors (or characters) with far less viewership/success get articles consistantly. The standard is to keep Big Brother winners, despite the odd inexplicable exception, here and there. This person easily meets the requirements of WP:BIO, regarding independent coverage from multiple sources. Unfortunately, we seem to have a problem where certain genres of entertainment popular amongst Wikipedians (i.e. science fiction) get one easy standard , and genres unpopular in Wikipedia (though hugely popular outside) get a tougher standard. The notion of measuring her "outside life" is silly. We don't require an athlete be known outside sports, an actor outside acting, a politition outside politics. She's tops on a top show. That's enough. --Rob 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you're certainly right about the tons of sciencefictioncruft all over Wikipedia. Still, at times it is (I presume unintentionally) funny: "Wow, real human beans actually spend their times this stuff?!" -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winners of major reality shows seem worthy of inclusion, regardless of what one AfD previously said. AfD shies away from precedent and looks at each article's subject's credentials independently. That being said, I would have argued for a keep on Daniel, too. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a reality game show winner is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. Once she has additional accomplishments, like substantial acting credits, she might be notable enough. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. NawlinWiki 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons Rob stated. -- ArglebargleIV 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reality show contestants/winners have posed notability problems for a while, and standards probably are needed. However, Rob's argument, Maggie is sufficienty notable due to winner BB6.-- danntm T C 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. I had contemplated putting an AfD on this one, but the fact that she won half a mill made me reconsider. However, how many lotto winners do we have listed in wiki? Thinking about it a bit more, I'm inclined to go for a delete as she was only part of a successful TV show, and she was not the main winner of the round. Her main field is an ER nurse and she's probably the only one without a huge mortgage. Not known outside BB. Her entry could be merged into BB6, along with the rest of them. Ohconfucius 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please clarify what you meant by "she was not the main winner of the round"? How are you using hte term "round" here? I think of a "round", as one of multiple parts in a competition (e.g. ten rounds in a boxing match). In Big Brother, a week or broadcast episode could be seen as a "round" (e.g. each opportunity for elimination). She surivived all the weeks/episodes/rounds up until the final one, which she was the winner (2nd prize being a tenth in size). At the end, there were only two contestants, which millions of people tuned to see. She wasn't just another part of the show. As for lotto winners, I suppose if a TV show was dedicated to a loto winner, giving them top prime time coverage, for an entire season of episodes, with millions of people following their every move, with lots of independent coverage, then maybe they should get an article. --Rob 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected about the "winner" part. I had misread the reference to $1m, thus thinking it was a second prize, although that was probably why I didn't nominate he when I first came across the article. I am sticking by my other comments. Ohconfucius 04:46, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies

non-notability, neologism, just another list ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for nomination: This is a term that appeared in an article in Newsweek magazine LAST WEEK. I don't believe it has been around suffienciently long enough to be inherently notable. It is pretty much a marketing gimmick Newsweek does to sell magazines, so this time, instead of calling the article "Hottest Schools" like they usually do, they named it "New Ivies." Thus, it's technically a neologism This is not a group of schools like the Ivy League, the Colonial colleges that have been around for a long time and as such the term and their association becomes notable. This is a term invented last week, and aside from one magazine article (reported also by their coverage partner MSNBC), it has no longevity backing it up. If this were an article titled "Hottest Schools", it undoubtedly would be deleted. This is academic boosterism. Lastly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of lists of loosely associated stuff, a reporter of news (since we're just pushing forward Newsweek's article), and considering we are not here to haruscupate, extrapolate, speculate, etc., we should not be determining right now by giving this article credence, whether this term "New Ivies" will experience longevity or be a new force in higher education. How do we know next year's list won't be "Newer Ivies"? If it's not a "flash in the pan" after a few years, the article would be more than welcome. Right now, it's a newborn, and unless the newborn were the Prince of Wales, the Second Coming of the Messiah, or the next Panchen Lama, this enumeration of "New Ivies" hasn't been around long enough to do something worth noting here. —06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE as nom. —ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. If this were "Newsweek's list of Movers and Shakers" or something along those lines, it never would have been created, but because the title of the list is tied to the Ivy League, it's maintainted an inch of traction here. The nom said that it's not Wikipedia's job to report the news, but I'd go even further: this isn't news anyway, it's simply editorial opinion, Newsweek's scholastic truthiness. If, in a decade, this has gained such traction that other sources of media anticipate its coming and report on Newsweek's new New Ivies findings, then fine, it deserves a place here. But as it stands, it's not ready for article space; it's merely boosterism. JDoorjam Talk 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism from a single magazine. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I see more cites elsewhere, I'll reconsider. But as long as Newsweek is the only organization neologizing this, delete. Alba 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various comments sensing that the word "Ivies" was just a publicity gimmick. These colleges are highly selective, as are the Ivies, but other than that there's no given definition of why these schools are Ivy-like. SliceNYC 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inherently notable concept. The nomination chargesthat this concept was 1) invented by Newsweek to sell magazines (a tautology in the sense that everything Newsweek does is with the intention of selling magazines) 2) That this is "boosterism" of the specified schools (so what? Does it delegitimize Newsweek's coverage of any other notable institution to label that "boosterism") 3) That this will be a "flash in the pan", an argument of the form, "It's of note now, but won't be in a year" (if I created articles on "Hula Hoop" or "Barbie doll", could those be listed for deletion on the grounds that "Nobody will care about this in a year?)
  • Since all of these arguments are silly we should keep this interesting article around. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete as listcruft born of the publicity machine. And yes, if hula hoops and Barbie dolls had just been invented and only one magazine had spoken of them, there's a strong chance I'd vote delete there, too. Anville 20:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only source cited is Newsweek, which originated the term. This should not be considered until there are other good, verifiable sources meeting the WP:RS guidelines that show that the Newsweek's list has achieved general recognition as a legitimate grouping with a convenient name. By a good source, I would not include individual universities' publicity offices news releases announcing their pleasure at being a New Ivy. I would include college guides that reference this group as a group, or a reference in a novel or short story or biography--"I went to Kenyon College, supposedly one of the 'new Ivies,'" etc. (And I don't think the term is likely to catch on, because this is a dogs-breakfast of miscellaneous institutions with nothing in common but Newsweek's liking of them. I suppose Newsweek can define "ivy" any way they please, but to use it to refer to an unaccredited institution whose 0.04-century history has barely allowed time for grass to grow, much less ivy, seems premature at the very least. Come to think of it, I wonder what possible objective definition of "ivy" could include Olin but exclude Babson?) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 29 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 per discussion as failing to meet WP:V.. Shell babelfish 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88MPH Studios

delete ill-fated, non-notable company appearing to fail WP:CORP. Nothing notable but its failures, in short, nothing that notable Ohconfucius 06:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly say this is grounds for deletion, an encycleopedia is meant to report something and I think that should be regardless of whether it is out of business or not.
People would likely want to read about what happened so I think the grounds for deletion are highly unjustified. Yes, the article needs work per the Wikipedia standard of formatting but it's questionable standards if other articles for relevent companies have been deleted due to them appearing to go out of business.Kingpin1055 11:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment deletion was proposed because no notability was asserted, and that there was insufficient indepently veriable facts about this company's notability in general, and not specifically about its failures. Article not in the wiki format is not grounds for deletion; failing WP:CORP is. Ohconfucius 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, I believe a case should be put forward explaining the nomination, should the nomination exist simply because of the non-wiki template, then such should have been mentioned in the 88MPH discussion page before the warning was placed. This would've given any editors ample time to begin planning a large-scale re-write to conform with the standards and practices. Kingpin1055 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small consolidation I suppose... another member has proposed condensing the article into a 'Reader's Digest' style entry fit to the Wiki format. Hopefully this'll prove satisfactory so that the article can be expanded properly according to the Wiki standards at a later date.Kingpin1055 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A web forum doesn't count, despite it being the company's forum? Now, I apologise if I get the next section wrong, but it's difficult to fully understand the WP:CORP based on the way it's written. Because 88MPH has only published comics in collected and singular form, that they haven't been commented greatly outside of online news sites and 'blogs', and that it isn't a chain then it fails the guidelines of WP:CORP and as such isn't deserving of it's own Wiki page? I think the link to Adam Nichol's DeviantArt page as that's the place where he proved something. I would like it if he hd a more official place for posting it but some of this stuff isn't made hugely public. 88MPH has bee involved in a number of serious issues, and the full removal of the article will only serve to make things worse. Please give a list of criteria that needs to be filled so that the 88MPH page can be retained.Kingpin1055 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article continues to be trimmed and reworked to meet Wiki standards, and is a valuable piece of information as a publisher of independent comic books. There is still work to be done, but this is a company who has released several products commerically. To delete this page would be akin to deleting Dreamwave Productions or NOW Comics. Reverend Raven 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is important to be retained for those who wish to find out what has been going on with 88MPH Studios Inc. With little updates on the news page and a mountain of posts on the company forum a site browser can easily look up the page and find out what exactly has happened. Despite the issues 88MPH Studios has released a number of products and it is yet to file Chapter 7 bankruptsy so, even in it's state it is still technically in business. There is also a ongoing legal case which can be reported here as soon as a result has been reached.Kingpin1055 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per WP:V, Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unfortunately, a company's own website and forum are first-party sources. The reason this caveat exists is because it is not too difficult for someone to spend five minutes writing a website in the hopes of getting a vanity mention on Wikipedia. (I'm not accusing you of this, of course... merely trying to provide examples of the potential abuse that could exist if WP:V was not policy.) You should check out that policy, along with the recommendations at WP:RS, in order to see what can be used to properly source the article. It is entirely possible that an article on this company would encyclopedic, and I have no prejudice toward changing my recommendation if it can be properly sourced. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 20:16, 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.
This page Syed Ahmed has been histmrged with Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), which is a new article about the same man, and I have AfD'ed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing WP:BIO, notability outside television show not established. Shell babelfish 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed with the consensus of all nine participants to the discussion. It now seems to have been re-created without a deletion review (in clear violation of our policies) and amazingly has survived a subsequent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed2.

Syed was a contestant on The Apprentice (UK series 2), and a perfectly adequate biography of him is provided in that article. He was not the winner, nor has he obtained (to my mind) any notability outside of the TV show. Media coverage of Syed seems limited to media speculation about his private life (almost exclusively in the Tabloids). Our precedent for shows such as Big Brother, whose contestants also received such media coverage, is to include a biography only on the programme's page. I therefore propose a delete and redirect to The Apprentice (UK series 2). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:02, 25 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. No clear consensus but article is well sourced, future name change not difficult.. Shell babelfish 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff's fourth studio album

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Reporting on a soon to be released album is fine, but when we don't even know what's it called...??! kingboyk 07:29, 25 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 Redirect to Krayzie Bone. Shell babelfish 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thuggish Bone

Album not due for release until next year. Pointless one-line stub. kingboyk 07:34, 25 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 redirect to Trey Songz. - Bobet 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Day

Not due for release until December. Also a pointless stub violation of WP:NOT. kingboyk 07:35, 25 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 nomination withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 08:35Z

Ashwath Sundarasen

delete non-notable actor, who only played in a minor part on a sci-fi series, and who has not done anything notable since.Ohconfucius 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ashwath Sundarasen is listed as a "main character" in The Tribe, and the actors for all other main characters of The Tribe also have articles on Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:34Z

Ashwath had a main role in The Tribe for a total of 3 years to. (Raintheone 14:45, 25 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 to The Walt Disney Company —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:28Z

Mousewitz

Does not deserve a separate entry, should be merged to Walt Disney Company abakharev 08:05, 25 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.. kingboyk 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seekexperience

Not a notable site (a grand total of 9 unique Ghits for "seekexperience", 3 of which are wikipedia!). In violation of WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article created by a single purpose account. Prod contested by an anonymous editor (also his single edit). Pascal.Tesson 09:14, 25 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 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese settlers in New Guinea during 1919-1940 times

First should be deleted as OR, and second as an article about a small group of people, each individually non-notable, most of whom have 0 Ghits. Dekimasu 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's doubtful that the OR problems can be addressed by other sources when the people involved have 0 Google hits. As an aside, I find this a somewhat interesting topic... but I also find it to be so esoteric as to be cruft. To fix the article, I think someone would also have to explain the notability of the topic in the lead. Dekimasu 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an idea, but it might ultimately be that this particular group of settlers aren't notable, while a broader group (1900-1940?) are. BigHaz 11:27, 25 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 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottalk

Non-notable website. 660 Google hits. Prodded but prod tag deleted so coming to AfD. Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 25 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. Punkmorten 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Empires

Non notable browser game, fails WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Alexa ranking is 114,928. Peephole 16:25, 12 August 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:42, 20 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 Redirect to Niagara Falls - shopping facilities as content is already moved there and fails WP:CORP as a stand-alone. Shell babelfish 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Park Mall

As I understand it a shopping mall is not noteable. Blood red sandman 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Actually some shopping malls are notable enough to warrant articles. I don't know enough about this place to cast an informed vote, however, so no vote. 23skidoo 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At 800,000 square feet, it's fairly big, and the external links show verifiability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiable or not, it just isn't remotely germaine enough to justify an article. Legis 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malls are businesses. This fails to show evidence of passing WP:CORP. GRBerry 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:CORP "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Please review the multiple non-trivial published articles listed as external links in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't see multiple non-trivial coverage. The deadmalls.com site looks like a blog, not a reliable source, so I discount it completely. The Business First of Buffalo article looks like trivial coverage to me, and at most a barely worked over reprint of a press release, so I don't count it as independent, non-trivial coverage. (That reprint requirement is very hard to test, we essentially have to use a "sniff test", which is part of the reason that I think WP:CORP could be improved.) The last, Niagra Gazette article does look like an independent non-trivial article. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... this is a typical mall and nothing, not even the local press coverage, distinguishes it. Personally I don't think WP:CORP necessarily should be applied to a mall. This just reinforces the need for a guideline for buildings and physical locations.--Isotope23 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a bit upsetting after the RfA. One deletion proponent says that the article doesn't meet WP:CORP, so I demonstrate that it does. And then a second deletion proponent says that WP:CORP doesn't apply. TruthbringerToronto (Talk contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I don't know what RfA has to do with anything... but I said personally I don't think WP:CORP should apply to malls...--Isotope23 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I understand that other people don't believe WP:CORP; I seem to be the strongest advocate of that position, as I rarely see it referenced in a Mall AFD discussion before I arrive. That is part of why I usually include an explanation of why it does apply. I also don't see what other standard too apply. I've seen articles for strip malls, and when we count those things there are about as many around as there are schools (in developed countries at least), so we need some standard. WP:CORP isn't perfect, either for suitability to malls or as a general standard for companies, but it does apply better than anything else we have, at least in my opinion. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their are lots of articles about shopping malls, this mall has a lot of history to it. It is located near a tourist town and tourist's can read about it if they come to Niagara Falls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14305 Man (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 August 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:20, 25 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.

RCW Women's Championship

The result was delete Tim! 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable wrestling championship. Along with this I am nominating RCW Tag Team Championship. Lid 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - since making this AfD another page has appeared at RCW Lightweight Championship and another page was speedied at RCW Internet Championship[25]. I'm adding the Lightweight belt to the list as looking at the website for the belts illustrates it's a small scale promotion and doesn't show any assertion of notability. --- Lid 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't think it's not notable doesn't it's not. Not all indy feds will be as big as JAPW, ROH, PWG, ECCW, Stampede Wrestling, etc.. Mr. C.C. 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no assertion of notability, and even the website leads no credence to the notability of the championship. If the only source of the notablitiy is the website itself it also fails to meet the guidelines. --- Lid 07:36, 22 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:35, 25 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 per discussion as failing notability requirements and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dally in the Alley

This is a poster competition. It scores a couple of hundred Googles. And that, basically, is it. No real evidence of significance and every winner appears to be redlinked with one exception, an unrelated policitican called Glenn Barr. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JChap2007 ST47 12:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I authored this article with assistance from the Dally in the Alley coordinator, Connie Mangalin, employing materials supplied by the Dally in the Alley committee. All of the artists list are easily found in web searches, and at least one of the artists listed wrote his own article, which was chopped. This was Stephen Goodfellow, and if you've seen his work, you would understand how important he is as an artist. BTW: This article has stood one year. So why now the rush to ruin the work of several ernest, Detroit based people. I simply cannot understand how a person can attend the Dally and overlook its signficance. It is an example of a festival that has quite literally saved the community in which it takes place from the wrecking ball. Wmjuntunen 22:26, 25 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 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StraightWay

Advertisement for non-notable evangelical corporation, providing no verifiability. Prod tag was removed. IceCreamAntisocial 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Their home page is here: [26]. Not sure why that's not in the article. It seems like they ought to be notable, but there's very little web chatter. The only real claims to notability are two letters of commendation from the last two governors of Texas (which politicians hand out like party favors). This is very likely the kind of organization (homeless people, teen mothers, etc.) that doesn't really cross path with the web very much, so I'm inclined to cut them some slack, but not this much. verifiability is the issue. - Richfife 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling back to Neutral on this one. Evangelical organizations raise my hackles a bit, so I should compensate for that in my vote. - Richfife 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not mention that one of the "former governors" of Texas is the current president of the United States, and the other one is the CURRENT GOVERNOR of Texas. That seems to hold a decent level of verification. Because an organization is not validated through a google search--does this now mean that they are non-notable? The StraightWay ministry is the one which led Karla Faye Tucker to Christ 12 years before her execution. The director has been interviewed by Larry King about the ministry. Several Houston-based news stations have aired reports about StraightWay. Carter89fifteen 06:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, verifiability is the issue. What was the air date of the Larry King episode? How long was his segment? The Karla Faye Tucker conversion isn't notable in my book (religious conversion on death row is very common and generally suspect). And again, a commendation from a governor (even a president to be) is nothing to write home about. Follow this link for a reason why: [27] - Richfife 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the media coverage was done in 1997, before the execution of Ms. Tucker. The main issue reported was in regards to the organization's ideological opposition of the death penalty. Also... my facts about the Larry King interview were not straight (in fact, they were downright wrong). I apologize for that. While King covered the issue, an interview was not conducted. There were, however, several networks that interviewed Mr. Kirschke (SW director) about the issue because of how controversial it was, including MSNBC. It placed StraightWay very much in the limelight because it was their organization that brought Karla to a place of Christian conversion. Thank you for withdrawing your "weak delete" vote. I appreciate your willingness to admit your lack of objectivity when it comes to evangelical programs, but I am confused about your prejudice against these programs (which you say "raise your hackles"). My question is: If you are a liberal, who by definition is one who is an open-minded person and freethinker, as I am, why are you so intolerant of those of a different persuasion, even if it is Christian-based? To me, that seems to be quite a narrow-minded approach and philosophy to have.-Carter89fifteen 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, don't get personal, please. In order to show that the organization is notable enough, all you need to do is cite your sources, and provide references that other people can go to and see for themselves why the organization is important enough to merit an article. I hate to link to Wikipedia:Verifiability again, but really that page has the information you need. Also, it is a requirement of every Wikipedia article. The article will not be deleted if it cites reliable sources about its importance. IceCreamAntisocial 03:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of a multitude of re-hab centers. so-what? It isn't the Betty Ford Clinic. It isn't notable -- per the article, no notable people have re-habbed here, either. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 23 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:51, 25 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. - Bobet 11:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podstreaming

Yet another podcasting protologism. Claims to have been in use for a year and a half, but still only 136 Google hits. --Haakon 21:45, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:55, 25 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 per discussion as failing notablity requirements and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Age Cluster Class (MACC)

Not encyclopediac, of local (if any) interest only, implicit attack Wtshymanski 21:13, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Vancouver School Board, and apply some NPOV --17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above - interesting concept, but not really one that needs to be broken out. I didn't get a lot of Google action with this either, so it's a bit on the narrow focused side. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a former MACC student, I believe that this article should stay put, just where it is. There is a MACC website, for whoever "didn't get a lot of action on Google". It is [28]here and is entirely verifiable.
The question that needs to be answered here is whether it is verifiable through reliable sources as being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That site would appear to be made by the group in question, not a reference to it from an outside source - which was what I was referring to by my Google comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 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 Keep per later discussion.. Shell babelfish 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion

Non notable webgame. Fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. I prodded it on august 1 and the prod was removed on august 18. Peephole 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It won a minor monthly award, but other than that, it hasn't become notable. No non-trivial independent third party coverage that I could fine. Also fails the nom criteria. --Wafulz 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won that award several times, first time in May 2000, and then again in December 2000, in January, March, April, June, September, October and December of 2001, and in February 2002. Shanes 02:52, 22 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:13, 25 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 as references were provided. Shell babelfish 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car dealer auctions

Original research, not suitable for an article. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX,
Please understand that I wrote this article in part based on my direct experience, but to a large extent based on secondary research with the original intent to aggregate information about the subject of car dealer auctions that is not readily available to the public. I tried to keep personal opinion out and still believe in the informational, educational and encyclopedic nature of this article. I'd be happy to provide links to my outside sources, if you think this would strengthen my position, and I would also gladly edit any parts that may sound "not suitable for an article" to you or to other potential readers. I'm hoping that in time other automotive experts will expand and improve on what I originally wrote. I humbly ask that you reconsider deleting it and provide constructive feedback that will be in the interest of the community at large.
--cfherbert 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Fox,
Thank you for clarifying. I think two of my sources actually meet the criteria from the policy. I'm not sure how best to source them in the article, but here they are:
1) "Auto Auctions: Prices Influence What You Pay for Cars" by Jerry Edgerton <http://hffo.cuna.org/story.html?doc_id=1170&sub_id=12433>
2) "Chapter 4. Buying A Vehicle At Auction" by The National Auto Auction Association <http://www.naaa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3382>
I hope this will save my article from deletion.
--cfherbert 00:35, 24 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per WP:OR ST47 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rebuild the article using references, removing any claims that cannot be verified. From what I have found in a quick search, the article seems to be relatively accurate. It just needs references and some cleanup. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as I think we can assume good faith of the article creator (who certainly seems to be making a good faith effort to cite the article per his comments above). However, it certainly needs more citations and references. -Markeer 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - original edittor appears to be trying properly source the article. Subject matter is suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It does however suck poop in it's current form.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing WP:MUSIC. Shell babelfish 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Santos

Nonnotable rapper. Bare assertion of notability, but then article says "his dream is to be widely recognized". NawlinWiki 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His dream is to be widely recognized in the Latino Communities in the United States (see article! He is already widely recognized throughout El Salvador. Want some proof? here's some proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Lui (talk • contribs)

  • Merge whatever is verifiable, if anything, into Pescozada, his group, as the information seems a little thin (based on the Spanish language sources and the Wikipedia article itself). --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the Spanish-language material. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Santos is not an official member of Pescozada, so the article should not be merged. Deleting his article would be like deleting the bibingka article, because even though it is widely recognized throughout Southeast Asia, it is not acknowledged in the U.S. as much. It would also be like deleting the Francisco Tarrega article, because "every interview I found was in Spanish". Look, if you ask me, this is a stupid matter to argue about. Also, if you google search Joaquin Santos, plenty of Hispanic citizens in the U.S. have written about him in myspace profiles, including other rappers you might consider "nonnotable". Furthermore, how come he has his own website in English? Nerdchomper 17:33, 16 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone provide evidence, in Spanish or English, that Santos meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria? For example, has he had a record that charted on the El Salvador music charts, if there are any, or another country? Has he released at least two albums through a major, or significant independent, record company in El Salvador, or another country? If the evidence is in Spanish, I'm sure there would be enough editors on the English Wikipedia who understand Spanish well enough to read it and confirm that he meets the criteria. --Metropolitan90 16:35, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:48, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Velvet Abstract

A short film that does not exist yet. Unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Let's wait until it exists and see if it becomes notable. Weregerbil 09:48, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:54, 25 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. Subject notable, sufficient verifiable information to merit seperate article. WP:NOT does not apply as information presented is much more than simply plot summary. Shell babelfish 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe

An article which is "solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction" (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7). Prod removed because "Warhammer 40,000 is very popular", which, while true, doesn't override WP:NOT. Delete --Pak21 08:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm, why? J Milburn 01:20, 21 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:58, 25 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 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sterling Walker

Similar to the ones above, but appears to be even less notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On a Google search for the full name as a string, the top hit is to a Korean war casualty's directory entry. Review of the links on the first page that are about this fellow showed no evidence that he has been published by himself, only as a "new voice" in anthologies. No evidence of winning awards or of having a review about his work in specific. GRBerry 16:19, 21 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:13, 25 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 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICWA World Heavyweight Championship

Non notable wrestling championship with only one listing and no context - also up for deletion are ICWA Womens Championship and ICWA European Championship Lid 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - I missed including ICWA Cruiserweight Championship. Adding to deletion list. --- Lid 06:57, 22 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:54, 25 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 per discussion as failing notability guidelines and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Central

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, non-notable website with an alexa ranking of 1,400,000+, no reliable sources on this that I can find, so violates WP:V. Xyzzyplugh 05:00, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:18, 25 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 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StorageByMail.com

Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Google hits all link back to this wikipedia article, or to a PR piece which the company put out and which a few minor websites picked up. The website has no alexa ranking Xyzzyplugh 05:11, 20 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 25 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 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codeps

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Non-notable website, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet WP:V Xyzzyplugh 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It DOES show up on Alexa. It's the top 4 entries when you search for it. And unsigned needs to install web filters if they don't want their kids reading Wikipedia. If this article gets deleted, then you also need to delete other articles like Al-anon/alateen, AA, Coanon, etc. because they are also support groups. This group is NO less valid a group. Either that, or you need to merge all the support groups for addictions into one article. Madmumbler 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC) MadMumbler[reply]
  • Correction, top FIVE entries -- I just went in today and typed in Codeps and the first 5 entries that come up are for the group (some are for the older version of it, but they are there).Madmumbler 15:36, 25 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 25 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Nicola Giacomo Aluigi Giuseppe Linza. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per notability discussion. Most of the media coverage is trivial, but traffic reports and subculture discussion in the Adbuster article seem to clearly establish notability.. Shell babelfish 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikeTalk

This article about a Nike shoes collection discussion site survived a prior AfD as "no consensus" back in March (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NikeTalk), but since then has not been improved one bit, nor has the notability been shown further. It is still my belief that it is nothing more than spam and should be delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a peek at an exemplary wikipedia fan club entry: [[32]] There's something odd about this one. This entry has no sources and doesn't even contain correct grammar, yet I don't see any deletion request. I don't see Nlu calling the entry's notability into question, and yet I can't imagine how THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has more members worldwide than www.niketalk.com. As I don't read any poorly dittoed fright rock "zines," I can't recall the last time THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has ever breached the mainstream media.

I could accept a style critique. The article, while constantly vandalized, was not well written to begin with, and I'm aware that this site's pedantic gatekeepers typically require that each entry be uniformly encoded in pretentious academic jargon - using as many cute latin phrases as possible so as to more accurately indulge the fantasy of actually participating in a real academic journal. If you want to condense this entry down to a banal recitation of verifiable facts regarding the site's traffic, history, and external mentions - go hog wild. We can all live with that.

What irks me is that this has, for whatever reason, become a personal crusade for a wikipedia administrator. Nlu, you really destroyed any shred of objectivity by continually railing against NikeTalk.com's "notability." How did this site require FURTHER proof of notability than VERIFIED mentions in Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal? The site's popularity may be verified simply by viewing the independently collected web stats. Since I doubt you've ever visited the site, let me give you a hand: [http://extremetracking.com/open?login=ntjordan ] Currently, the site receives between 70,000 and 90,000 unique visitors per day - and this is off peak. Over 4.6 million unique visitors viewed the site in January of this year alone. If that is not notable, you have a hell of a lot of entries to delete.

What's more, you've obviously attempted to narrow the scope of this debate in order to railroad this entry from wikipedia. You DELETED several "keep" votes - which in no way violated wikipedia standards - and then blocked all new and unregistered users from participating in this forum and prevented a TRUE public hearing. The NikeTalk entry has been vandalized on probably hundreds of occasions, and yet after ONE miscreant violates this topic you place it under security? Your motives here are transparent. I honestly can't imagine what your problem is with a harmless online community for sneaker fans sharing wikipedia space with millions of other articles, but you've clearly demonstrated a subjective bias against this entry. You've abused what little "power" you possess. And for what? To keep a sneaker message board from "contaminating" an encyclopedia that enshrines, among other things, warcraft mods and testicle cuffs? This is a resource that is, supposedly, open to the general public.

There is NO standard violated by this entry that has not been violated a thousand times over by entries you continue to allow. If this entry is spam, what of the entry for www.newegg.com? Does anyone really need a wikipedia entry to detail the history of a web store? If this entry is not notable, then what of The Doyle Fan Club or any of the thousands upon thousands of other equally obscure entries?

Look, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the people. It's intended to include topics that stodgy "formal" encyclopedias wouldn't deign to include. www.niketalk.com is the largest online community for sneaker collectors in the world today. Whether that's important to you or not is utterly subjective - and your standards are SUPPOSED to be OBjective. The entry should exist for those all those who might seek it. If you can abide an entry for the Cinderella Stamp Club, (600 members) I'm sure there's a place for the world's largest community of sneaker fans.

Wikipedia users, I'm not asking you to LOVE this entry. I am asking you to be fair - and in this case most of the criticism levied against this entry has been inconsistent and superficial at best. --RakimAllah 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the records, I reverted to a pre-vandalism version because these anons/newly registered users removed valid delete votes and defaced the AfD discussion itself. See the history of the AfD. Since those votes would have been disregarded anyway (not only as vandalism but also as votes by users who were too new), there is no loss. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still more hypocrisy from Nlu... First of all, unless you have IP records PROVING that all of those individuals were responsible for vandalizing the site you have NO basis for removing their valid "keep" votes. You have to admit, it all looks both petty and suspect to have cut off ALL "keep" votes and restored all "delete" votes. Altering or deleting votes makes a mockery of Wikipedia's "honor system" - and it appears you're every bit as guilty as those you consider "vandals" in this instance. Even though I clearly want the article kept, ultimately I respect the integrity of wikipedia enough to acknowledge and respect votes that go against my cause. You can't make the same claim - and you're an administrator. What does that say?
Simply because they are new users, you don't feel they have a say in the matter? MOST wikipedia users do NOT register for this site. Shouldn't all wikipedia viewers have a say? If an article is important to someone, shouldn't they be able to voice their opinions and contribute to the discussion? What you're attempting to accomplish is to limit this debate to those who have little to no understanding of the subject matter. Imagine if we put one of your prized articles on Chinese historical figures up for a deletion debate and allowed only Alabamian Klansmen to vote. Do you think they'd consider your subjects "notable?" You appear to have no respect for or understanding of the subject matter - and it's clearly biased your judgment.
Look at the quality of arguments tethered to these "delete" votes. How well supported are these sputtered fragments? "Spam" How so? If this is spam, you have thousands and thousands of other articles that would seemingly fit the same criteria. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles promoting businesses both online and off. Is it only spam if the author veils her or his bias behind third person objective? Not that it matters, but NikeTalk.com isn't even a business. All ad revenue above and beyond the site's hosting costs goes to various charities. It's a community that holds a unique position of influence within the sneaker industry, as indicated by all of those sources you fail to acknowledge. If someone can type "newegg" into your search engine and find an article that reads like a brochure, why is it that a sneaker fan cannot type in NikeTalk to find more information? If vandalism weren't such a pervasive problem here, perhaps there'd be a better core article for those interested to update. As it stands, the article can take one step forward and three steps back. Yet you clearly care more about the vandalism of your prized "delete" votes than the vandalism of actual CONTENT. How fair is it that people who have no real interest in this article, yet enjoy feeling as though they're really "editors" of something as ostensibly intellectual as an encyclopedia, are able to impose snap judgments in this space - yet those who actually care the most about the subject of this article are locked out because they had no reason to open an account in the past? Aren't they still wikipedia users? You're simply afraid of opening up the floor because you know that you'll never achieve a consensus delete under such conditions - so you JUMPED at the chance to manipulate the process to engineer your desired result. That's pathetic. You could've simply reinstated the lost "delete" votes, since you're following this so closely.
You have NO case with regard to notability - and you know that. How many other entries are asked to CONSTANTLY add new sources merely to prove their notability over and over again? The site was just mentioned in Time magazine in March. While the EASILY verifiable traffic and membership figures and previous mainstream media mentions should have been MORE than sufficient, the site has since been mentioned in the LA Times and Adbusters magazine. What more do you want? How is it that a stamp collectors club with 600 mentions is notable, but a community with over 50,000 members and 70,000+ regular visitors that has received international media attention is not? What, exactly, remains unproven about the site's notability? Have ezboard.com, extreme web tracking, Time magazine, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Adbusters, Details, Strength, etc. etc. ALL fallen for some "hoax" here? Visit the freaking site. ONCE. You'll find a community with 50,000 plus members - just as ALL of these sources claim. What more can you POSSIBLY ask for to demonstrate notability?
Compare the NikeTalk entry to other fan club entries. There are NO SOURCES in any number of unchallenged fan club entries - not ONE. There's no source to verify its content. You have XBox live "clans" with wikipedia articles for crying out loud. Go bully them. This article contains verifiable sources from some of the most respected mainstream periodicals in the world and that's suddenly not enough to "prove notability?" You have to acknowledge that you're being a little inconsistent here, to say the very least. While you may prefer starcraft mods, testicle cuffs, fright rock, and stamp collectors to sneakers - that's no reason to try and run a site off what should be a public resource. As with any encyclopedia, wikipedia ought to have the potential to BROADEN one's horizons a bit. Take advantage. It's not just about what interests YOU. --RakimAllah 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether those users were vandalizing or not is open to public judgment. I've posted the link to the history of the discussion. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that they did vandalize this discussion. Your attacks on me just, I think, shows the lack of case for keep (at least prior to Pixelface's rewrite). Even after Pixelface's rewrite, however, I believe this is still a spam magnet.
As for the strawman argument of "but there are other articles more deserving of deletion!" it should be noted that you can propose articles for deletion, too, and if you think that those other articles don't belong, propose to delete them. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LACK of a case? That's rich. I've posted an actual defense for this entry. You've posted nothing more than a bunch of empty claims. You CLAIM the site is spam, but you make NO argument for it. You CLAIM the site isn't notable, but you make NO argument for it. Have you REALLY passed the bar? For crying out loud, since when has "because I said so" been a valid argument? For the sake of novelty, try to make a point here.
Go back and look at the log you posted. This entry, and ONLY this entry, is responsible for the removal of valid "delete" votes: [[33]]
There's one other superfluous entry, the "get off ISS" entry. SEVERAL other entries contain nothing but valid comments from wikipedia users, which you then removed. What's wrong with these entries: "* Dont Delete You can't delete it, it has 500,000,000 page views - cafa301" "* * Dont Delete This is one of the biggest forums on the internet-samberkun" If a red user name indicates a new user, you KEPT delete votes from new users and, conversely, you DELETED keep votes from new users. What does that say about you?
Your claim that the site isn't "notable enough" for wikipedia remains indefensible. That you've repeatedly asserted this claim only proves your bias. Even so, let's prove your bias a few more times for the benefit of those who haven't yet been totally disillusioned. If the revised NikeTalk entry is spam, surely the article for www.newegg.com is spam. For crying out loud, go look at the entry. They're using it to advertise their upcoming 'regional expansions.' The whole entry reads like an advertisement. So, what's the difference? Please, tell me. IF you were a person of principle, I imagine you'd wish to apply the SAME standards to every single entry. IF you were a person of principle, you'd vote to DELETE the entry for www.newegg.com on these same grounds. If it is NOT deleted and "fails to improve" even after the community allows it to stay, I would then expect you to HOUND this entry with future delete requests until a "consensus" decision is reached. Otherwise, you're PROVING that you're treating this particular entry differently than others. Of course, I shouldn't have to be the one to propose the article for deletion. Now that you, an administrator, are aware of another spam entry like www.newegg.com - YOU will be the one to propose and argue for the article's deletion. It's your goal to remove all spam articles that you're aware of, is it not? Or, are you going to admit that you're only interested in removing "spam" articles if they somehow irk you? So much for your objectivity. This isn't a campaign against spam. You just have beef with this entry - and it's now obvious to all. At least have the integrity to own up to it and explain why you'll tolerate "spam" from newegg and thousands of other sites - even after they've been brought to your attention - but you're willing to wage this little crusade against niketalk's entry.
You're still not going to reach a consensus, especially after the article has been stripped down to include ONLY those statements easily verified by the included sources. The moment the NikeTalk entry was cleaned up, your claims were nullified. The subject is obviously notable. The entry has been scrubbed to the bone. That you continue to press for deletion only indicts you further. Stop the bleeding. Sadly, it all reflects poorly on wikipedia since you're so flagrantly misusing your administrative access. Fair-minded users won't stand for it. --RakimAllah 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Has this website really been mentioned in Newsweek, Time Magazine, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Los Angeles Times, et cetera? Does it really have "47,060 registered users"? If so then we probably shouldn't be having this discussion. RFerreira 08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independently verifiable membership statistic. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of.... Do you do any research at all when you condemn these entries? NikeTalk is hosted by Ezboard. You may know them as one of the world's largest message board networks. The address www.niketalk.com is actually a redirect leading to http://p093.ezboard.com/bniketalk. So, it's not NIKETALK claiming 52,162 users - it's EZBOARD's own system. Not good enough for Nlu standards? Email someone at ezboard and ask them to confirm it. Or, you know, just man up and accept it. Either way works. --RakimAllah 15:12, 31 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 per discussion after article update. Shell babelfish 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 3166-2:TT

This is all covered in Trinidad and Tobago. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Blood red sandman 12:03, 25 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Wrestler Rick Love

Can't find evidence of even existing, article written in nonsensical non-encyclopedic way. Claims of notability are iffy at best. No sources or links to evidence. Lid 12:08, 25 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fameism

Article is about a neologism (Google turns up 9 hits, most whch do not seem to be related to this "term"), could also be seen as original research. Prod removed without reason Wildthing61476 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article may well be original research, this does not make it any less true. The term 'Fameism' is a neologism, but the description of 'fameism' is none the less an occurance that is happening today. As an original piece of work it could be a template for incorporation into mainstream language and culture. Google turns up 22 hits, 2 of which are related to this 'term'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.119.144 (talk • contribs)

The 2 hits related to this term are on Urban Dictionary and have been created by the same person who made the entry on Wikipedia. There are no hits from reputable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.13.250 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete, copyvio. Aguerriero (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nshanian

The article is about a extremely obscure person (google test lists a single article) and the article itself was copied from some other source. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nshanian is an international soprano, who is well known in Armenia and Russia.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in the War on Terrorism

Page was created by a sockpuppet and is redundant with pages War_on_Terrorism:_Allies and War on Terrorism as well as the general template Template:War on Terrorism --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:21, 25 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. Shell babelfish 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Dinitto

Article on obscure, not notable radio host. Google test lists less than 900 hits and article is a constant copyvio mess. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:22, 25 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 309A (Florida)

This article is about a road that does not seem to exist and is of no notable importance. Just because there are other non-notable articles like this in Wikipedia should not be a justification. Those non-notable articles should also be deleted. It can be included in a list and this information can be merged into a list but it does not justify its own standalone article. The real question is: Was this particular road notable? --- Skapur 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a seemingly non-existant road. Current consensus on Wikipedia clearly maintains that any highwya that an American state has bothered to number as part of its state highway system is worthy of inclusion, but I'm not convinced that this road actually exists. There is a Route 309 that connects the cities mentioned in the article, but aparently no 309A. I will gladly switch to keep if I am shown to be wrong, however. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This road is now County Road 308B (as shown on a 1997 DeLorme atlas; I may also have a photo of the signage on southbound US 17); it was State Road 308B until the mass decommissioning of the 1980s. I have an FDOT Putnam County map that says it was renumbered in 1971, and a 1965 Rand McNally atlas that shows it as 309A. So it is verifiable.
On the other hand, this article is badly named and rather useless, and should be a redirect to one of State Road 308B (Florida), County Road 308B (Florida) or County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida). So I have no opinion on whether this particular article should remain, but no precedent would be set by its deletion. --SPUI (T - C) 19:50, 25 August 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, Shell babelfish 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SPUI's comments. I'm surprised by the editors who said "keep per SPUI", since SPUI made no effort to keep, and if SPUI's comment were to be counted as a "vote", it would be as a redirect to an article that does not exist yet. Lacking that article, this one-liner should be deleted, as it has no historical purpose. -- NORTH talk 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aozora: Another Blue Sky

Article on very obscure webcomic. The google test only lists results from wikipedia and other comics wikis. The article's author only wrote this particular article and his user page is exactly like this article. Very obscure, possibly vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nexis comes up empty (though it is hard to be sure; there is a Japanese financial firm called Aozora whose hits number into the hundreds and may be obscuring some hits for the webcomic). Uucp 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, when Adonisclopin created the "Aozora: Another Blue Sky" article .. Adonisclopin probably didn't realize there already was (and still is) an article about the Aozora webcomic. Perhaps move info from "Aozora: Another Blue Sky" article to Aozora? --EarthFurst 18:32, 27 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in fashion

Article (obviously a template) was tagged as patent nonsense, which isn't correct. Maybe the fashionistas really are looking ahead in a verifiable way? Doubtful, but I'm bringing it here for a wider audience in case I'm wrong. Creator user:Jocasta shadow seems to be an editor in good standing. -- nae'blis 12:31, 25 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 no consensus. —Xyrael / 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report

Despite being a Colbert fanatic, I feel that this page is quite unnecessary. It currently lists two neologisms- The Simpsons, this is not. The list consists of truthiness, which has its own article, and wikiality, which is covered in the article dealing with WP in pop culture (among many other articles which mention it). If Stephen can come up with a significant number of widely-used terms, perhaps this page can be recreated; at this point, it's simply redundant. Kicking222 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per nom. This seems to be a list/category that can be made in years to come, but not now. -Markeer 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC --Doc 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't watch this show, but it making up words seems to get some attention. It doesn't have many at the moment, but it might be easier to just keep it rather than have it be recreated later. That said I have no strong feelings on this one way or other.--T. Anthony 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, so that there is a place to put Colbert's neologisms (since I'm sure he has more to come), per the proposed guideline WP:COLBERT. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and WP:COLBERT. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - I get the feeling some people want to delete this because they disapprove of Colbert's stated dislike for certain aspects of Wikipedia, rather than because the list is useless. As it stands the list is partially useful, but personally I think if there isn't a list of morrisisms, Colbert doesn't warrant one for his less imaginative word-mashings. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the neologisms Colbert uses seem to become rather popular, and the list is certainly verifiable and expandable. --Maxamegalon2000 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Be really nice to have a clearinghouse for the Colbertisms that people keep creating articles for. Maybe having this page here will save some of those neologism articles from being created in the first place. VoiceOfReason 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both to prevent cluttering up the rest of the main namespace, and because, quite frankly, as one of America's leading media personalities (somehow), what he says carries some significant weight. This list serves to further illustrate and expand upon the coverage of Colbert's tendency to coin neologisms, which has been elsewhere reported on. I'm not his hugest fan, and I would say that an individual article for each neologism would be overkill, but a single, easily-maintained list (citing sources) is very appropriate for a show of this size and influence. Captainktainer * Talk 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable "glossary" of one of America's more popular shows. I think this deletion is fueled by the Wikiality incident.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  • Burn it, I actually was coming to the page to nominate it. Why you ask? They are less notable than episodes and are often one-time gags. Come on, he makes a new one almost every show. Wikipedia is NOT a glossary. Lets give the notable terms (or should I say term) an article and leave the rest to wither away. If a term can't establish itself outside of the show, it does not deserve to exist. Could the people voting keep see WP:NEO (avoid neologisms and never use protologisms [ie. all the content on this page])? This article isn't needed to keep out clutter. Why not just create a short limited list of examples of his neologism on the show's page? The main argument for this seems to be that it will prevent articles about the terms...why can't we just delete them when they come? BrokenSegue 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not include neologisms, and having a list of them does not stop them being excluded. Truthiness is one thing, but we already have a perfectly good article on that. Words like "jazzebration" and "wikiality", meanwhile, have zero currency outside very specific references to very specific items on this show, and thus have no place in an encyclopedia. Discuss very notable examples in their own articles; discuss less notable examples in the main article on the show; don't discuss non-notable examples at all. There's no place for this list. — Haeleth Talk 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dania Aguirre

Very elaborate article, but not much there. Even the article basically says she's a student. The listed credits are not supported by [her IMDB page, which lists one uncredited appearance, one voiceover, and one unnamed character ("College Student"). Looks like, at this stage of her career, she's barely above an extra. Seems to fail WP:V and WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 13:08, 25 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. Shell babelfish 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Phelps

Can't establish meets WP:BIO. Only about 700 g-hits for "Calvin Phelps" +artist. Bio page lists student awards and scholarships, and exhibitions but nothing that meets wp-bio. Different webpages give different dates of birth. :) Dlohcierekim 13:08, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic ecosystem

wikipedia dead end which adds nothing new to the ecosystem article and is simply taking up space in the server. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree. 158.143.159.64 16:36, 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. Shell babelfish 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquilaine Diffusion

less-than-stub dead end article about a extremely obscure radio station. Google test lista 66 hits. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:39, 25 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 redirect to GI (Liberatore, 2006). 12:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gi

Self-promotion - this stuff should be kept on the user's user page! Adambisset 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - grubber 19:37, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McGarry

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as being the youngest person to appear on a quiz show. The article does not cite sources, and the only link to that article is from the quiz show The Einstein Factor. The page could either be deleted or made into a redirect to The Einstein Factor. apers0n 13:46, 25 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 copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction by the pool

No ascertion of notability, all content is simply a copy and paste from the website as evidenced by the link. In a tone where it assumes the reader knows what it is talking about. Lid 13:49, 25 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, transwikied. Aguerriero (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arimaa strategy

Cruft article on attempt to create another game HowTo on wikipedia. Article doesn't have any information whatsoever and only claims the intention to add information that doesn't belong on wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 13:50, 25 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, transwikied. Aguerriero (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arimaa tactics

Cruft article on attempt to create another game HowTo on wikipedia. Article doesn't have any information whatsoever and only claims the intention to add information that doesn't belong on wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speedy. Why is this even a discussion? Uucp 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. I'm with Uucp- why even talk about this? There's no content besides a cross-space redirect, and as a result, there's no reason not to speedy delete the page. -- Kicking222 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. ColourBurst 15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry if I have created a page which violates some Wikipedia policy. For the record, this article does not claim the intention to add content later, and it was not originally empty. It was moved in order to become part of a larger Wikibook project. At the time that I moved the original article's content, I asked for advice in the Village Pump, and was told that a "soft redirect" would be appropriate. Is there some dispute over the validity of redirecting pages that have moved to a new location? Did I have some renegade advising me in the Village Pump? A full article existed under this name for more than a year, and several external sites link to it. Would it not be a courtesy to users of Wikipedia to leave behind redirects whenever something moves? --Fritzlein 17:01, 25 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, no significance established. Note that I am reversing the closure made by Wikizach (talk · contribs) because a) it was nothing but a head count and b) the user in question is not an administrator and should not be closing discussions where the outcome isn't obvious.--SB | T 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LostCasts

Non notable podcast for the TV show Lost.-- Jtrost (T | C | [34]) 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable podcast. Seems to be an advertising campaign. --Peephole 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very good Podcast and worthy wiki entry. The podcast does exactly what it says on the tin and is certainly of note, even one of the Lost cast has phoned into the podcast —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.107.167 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 86.40.107.167 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Strong Keep This is the podcast that has frequently been referred to as the "podcast for the serious Lost fan" by the Lost community and even by other popular Lost podcasters. This is not a podcast that is based on reviewing episodes and entertaining (and there are some excellent podcasts which do those things very well;) this is the one podcast that deals with Lost mythology and literary references on a deep level. It involves considerable time and research by these intelligent and dedicated podcasters who also inspire their listeners to research the mythological and literary references within Lost. This podcast was one of the very first Lost podcasts and has remained a pillar of the Lost community. That alone makes them noteworthy. Then add to that, their distinction as the podcast that created the standard for the "grad school level Lost podcast" and their "notability" within the Lost community is cemented. These podcasters put a lot of time and research into each show (often quoting wikipedia; thereby boosting the popularity and growth of Wikipedia.) Their i-tunes standing testifies to this. How can they be considered anything but one of the most outstanding and noteworthy of all Lost podcasts? }This is my first post on Wikipedia. However it is not a single purpose account. I have frequently used Wikipedia (and yes, I learned about it from LostCasts) for research. It is the first place I turn to find answers or to learn about something. I think Wikipedia is as close to a universal all *purpose library as this world can ever know. I have never posted before because I never felt like I had anything important to add. I do today. LostCasts is an excellent podcast and deserves to be noted as an important part of the Lost community. I am proud to make this my first post. MrsB 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — MrsB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]
  • Strong Keep This podcast is the best Lost podcast to date. It holds discussions on theories, themes and characters along with book discussions. It is intelligent and a major contributor to the Lost community. This podcast is better than most because it delves deeper into literary themes than any other Lost podcast. I have known people who, through listening to Lostcasts, have become interested in different kids of literature. My neice who previously hated to read, became interested in reading because the podcast mentioned several books that have a relationship to Lost. She has since read Watership Down and loved it and is now reading other books. And podcast that inspires children to read cannot be bad and others should have a chance to learn about it on Wikipedia.Laureletsage 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Laureletsage (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable through general information, biography, and popularity within ABC's Lost pod casting community. This discussion is stalling any new information that would make this a more informative and indepth article. If being one of the most educational, informative, and popular media out there doesn't deserve notoriety, then wikipedia needs some serious spring cleaning. Please explain yourself in more depth, instead of just writing "not notable". Also, noting on people's non-activity, does not render their opinion "non notable" either, wether they heard it on a forum or not. Vondruke 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Vondruke (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep This podcast is quite well produced, extremely informative, and entertaining. Quite "notable" indeed. rkdarwin13 — rkdarwin13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is huge in the Lost community. It is generally regarded as the most informative and on-topic.It always ranks within the top 3 downloaded Lost podcasts, often being number 1.Jorge Garcia has participated in the podcast. The show has a large listener base, this is not at all an advertisement. The producers have recently been asked to speak at Dragoncon. Wikipediastar 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This podcast is essentially canon amongst Lost podcasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.78.46 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 69.203.78.46 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete Looks to be a fan site podcast. No notability. Wildthing61476 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable podcast. Nuttah68 10:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most popular LOST fan podcasts being published. Frequently in the iTunes top 100. 9:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.86.178.202 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 207.86.178.202 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Not even close to 'just another fan podcast'. Notable for the following:
    • pioneering an unique non-recap review style - with the exception of the literary reviews in the programming break, the program will not recap or summarize any plot material
    • the conduct of extensive philosophical, literary and technical research for each edition
    • provision of the podcasts and hompage enitely without recourse to advertising revenue
    • the LOST actor Jorge Garcia has contributed audio comments twice. The content of those contributions indicates, as he has posted on the Fuselage website, that he listens to each edition
    • extenisve listener contributions and collaboration with respect to theory development, especially by listeners in locations featured in LOST locations outside the United States: e.g. Sydney and the United Kingdom
These points can be verified by listening to each of the podcasts that are avilable on the LOSTCasts site or ITunes and reviewing the comments sections for each podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 August 2006
  • Delete. This article is not notable, and is obviously just trying to use Wikipedia to increase listenership. -- PKtm 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a great a great article for a great podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.200.180 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 August 2006}— Possible single purpose account: 71.135.200.180 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep One of the most popular LOST fan podcasts being published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.228.10 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2006— Possible single purpose account: 69.221.228.10 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep If the criteria for deletion is the claim that this podcast is not notable. Aside from the official podcast this both one of the first and a very popular podcast. They are very intelligent and put on a concise, and relevant show. If the criteria is that it's too much of an advertisement then rather than deleting it, suggest it be fixed. (lostcasts listener) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.131.12 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 67.171.131.12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep A simple search on Odeo or Itunes will show that this podcast is ranked fairly high for the independent podcast community. Based on the forum that they loosely represent alone is enough to warrant it's relevancy. Also consider when searching itunes for this podcast that it has at present, 52 reviews, where as the official podcast from CBS has 57 if you want to get to basic numbers which should give an idea of popularity. Dellybelly 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (NULL - Account active for 6 months. Single purpose not warranted.)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast. No claims of notability have been backed up by reliable sources. The podcast mainpage has a campaign encouraging listeners to join wikiepdia for the sole purpose of voting to keep this article. The article features a link to this site within the prose.--Opark 77 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep. You people would not know a good podcast if you tripped over it:— Possible single purpose account: 203.192.146.137 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is listed in the iTunes music store (which can be accessed through the itunes program) as the seventh most popular lost podcast - this is out of over 150 lost podcasts, including several official lostcasts. Alexa traffic results (http://alexa.com/data/details/main?url=lostcasts.com) also ranks the site fairly high. Beyond all that, is the obvious popularity of this show really the reason it should stay? I think the simple fact the producers are being referenced for an upcoming book on the theory gives it some credibility. Of many many podcasts, this appears to the number one strictly theory/spoilers lost podcast (in order of popularity on iTunes). The goal of wikipedia is to expand knowledge. If you're insterested in the show lost as well as podcasts, this is a very notable one and I can't think of a single reason it shouldn't be included.VKX 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For objective opinion, reference the following AP article from May of 2006 on LOST podcasters: http://asap.ap.org/stories/586641.s From the AP article: "If Jay and Jack and Generally Speaking are the undergraduate schools of "Lost" theories and thought, then LOSTCast takes it to the graduate school level, dissecting the show in a way few podcasts even attempt to do. If you want a no frills, hour-long discussion picking apart the meaning of the glow-in-the-dark map in the hatch, this podcast is for you." 216.82.221.164 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 216.82.221.164 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete Not notable pod cast Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most popular podcasts in the Lost community. As a fan of Lost who doesn't read any of the boards, I find it indispensable. ~ Mastermelari— Possible single purpose account: Mastermelari (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep- very recognisable podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2006— Possible single purpose account: 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Delete: prime example of non-notable fansite/podcast.--LeflymanTalk 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This podcast appears to be a notable example of a podcast. Keeping this article would maintain the consistency of Wikipedia, as other podcasts such as the Phone Losers of America podcast have not been deleted. LOSTcasts have been dedicated much to the theorizing of LOST. The writers for LOST are often noted for reading fandom sites, and even the show's actors have replied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.103.222.221 (talk • contribs) 209.103.222.221
  • Keep!!! One of the best podcasts on the Lost tv show and an excellent podcast in general. They engage in intelligent discussions and delve deep into theories and literature references pertaining to he show as well as examining the characters on Lost and they also give concise recaps.66.167.138.155 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Vargas — Possible single purpose account: 66.167.138.155 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep, what harm is it doing to the website, LOSTCasts are the best Lost podcast available, and is a great source of information without spending hours on forums! — Possible single purpose account: 81.152.43.10 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete: Poorly-written article. Reads like an advertisement for the podcast. Wikipedia is not an advertisment. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (don't edit this thankyou): The uniqueness of the format is sufficiently noteworthy. If it were the 10th template copy of an established format and addednothign new then yes, it would not meet the standard, but it is patently a groundbreaking approach to online interaction on a topic that itself warrants inclusion. The context of the subject proves this: there are many LOST podcasts, but the vast majority are templated 'fan review' offerings. This podcast is primarily a review and critique of online reaction to the initial medium. It was the first to use this approach. This is precisely the reason why entries such as the one for Tucker Max don't attract delete campaigns. Tucker Max really is unnoteworthy as a participant in his chosen area of activity (online media, with apparant sidelines into fornication, alcoholism and getting sued) but is noteworthy because he was a principal pioneer/early developer (but, interestingly, not even the inventor) of the 'fratire' literary genre. If the LOSTCasts entry were allowed sufficient time to mature, the uniqueness of the format could be properly documented and explained, as could its impact on other on line activities. The fact that it is also very popular is not a disqualifying factor. Many of the 'delete' entries assume (quite wrongly) that popularity of itself raises a presumption in favour of deletion. If that were true, huge chunks of Wikipedia should be cut right now. At the very least, a decision on deletion should be deferred for the balance of this year to allow the question to be reviewed after development of the entry. The entry is far too new and underdeveloped to allow a final decision on deletion at this time. In addition, one really has to ask if this delete campaign has any merit at all? It appears to be based on borderline, subjective views about noteworthiness that really have no means by which they can be tested, and therefore can't provide the rigorous basis required to apply the relevant policies in this case. Besides all that, no one on the Internet has a bullet proof ego, and I certainly include myself in that thought. My point being: would this delete campaign have been prosecuted so viciously if the word 'clueless' had not been used on the LOSTCasts website to refer to some Wikipedia contributors to begin with?--60.227.230.22 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above author has already voted once on this issue. Wildthing61476 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Comment This is not a 'voting' system - it even says so at the top of the page, viz: 'please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia.'--60.227.230.22 13:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The LostCasts website has published this message to its users:

In addition, we cover recent Wikipedia issues. One of our listeners started a LOSTCasts entry, and some clueless users are trying to get it deleted! Help save our Wikipedia entry by visiting this page and telling them to "keep" the entry! Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not another fan site; it's meant to be encyclopedic.

Which really doesn't explain how the entry on Lindsay Lohan was ' identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.' 1. I mean, that piece doesn't exactly look like it was written by her arch enemy now does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - Encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive reference work having articles on a broad range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a given field, usually qarranged alphabetically. Encyclopedic is defined as of or typical of an encyclopedia; embracing many subjectives; and comprehensive. Based off of the definition of encyclopedia, it seems that if you are going to include Lost as one of your subjects that it would be just as important to consider Lostcasts as an integral part of referencing the t.v. show. Using this as justification could place this entry under Lost Further Reading.All definitions are taken from Webster's II New College Dictionary (Third Edition). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melontherocks (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Melontherocks (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment: Yes, and the issue is not whether it's a good podcast (it is), or "notable" in terms of effort and results, but whether it's notable for Wikipedia, in the WP:Notability sense. Defenders of the article here (driven to this page by the comments on the LostCasts site) have taken offense by being called not notable, but that's not meant to be an insult. The question is, then, is whether every major fan site should have its own article too. To me, obviously not. So why this one? Again, it's a slippery slope. -- PKtm 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:For what it's worth, the wikipedia page wasn't set up for advertising purposes. The podcasters directed attention to its deletion, which is pretty borderline, but they never set it up. Personally, I think there's a difference between the average fansite, which features recaps, pictures, etc, and the podcasting LOSTcasts does. Podcasting is an inherently more personal, creative endeavor than a regular fansite. It goes beyond a reflection of the original and becomes unique. It's the difference between a photograph and a painting. Does that make this important enough to deserve it's own page? I have no idea. Chunkyrice 13 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is alot of information yet to be posted in this article and deleting for non-notability is absurd when it is currently not a complete article. Notability in itself is a relevant concept and therefor should not be the sole reason for deleting an obviously popular topic.

Testerer 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This podcast is among the most popular of all of them. It was also one of the originals. I don't understand why anyone would suggest this Wiki article for deletion. It's a great podcast, and certainly 'worthy' of having a Wiki article.--BuffyMars 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: BuffyMars (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Strong Keep Lostcasts is not for every LOST fan, but for someone like me, who is interested in going beyond watching the show, this is a great resource for news, commentary, and fascinating speculation on what is behind the creative curtain for this show. These podcasters have given up a great deal of time to try and offer an entertaining resource that has at times overlapped with the actual production of LOST. The nomination for deletion of this article is spiteful and obviously from someone that wants to be a petty irritant rather than genuinely being concerned with the accurracy of content on wikipedia. I suggest the folks in favor of deletion subscribe to other podcasts and allow the great many listeners to be more than enough validation for an entry here. This entry is not a mere plug for a podcast. This podcast is as valid as a television or radio program and for me is a fabulous wealth of information. Devaluing this by stating it is made by fans is ridiculous. You want people producing a podcast about LOST to love the show enough to do their best. Please do not delete this entry! Micahsherrill 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Micahsherrill has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • This Wikipedia entry is to reconize an entity (Lostcasts) as a program put on by individuals who are fans of another program. It is imporant to document and note worthy organizations such as Lostcasts both for what they do for the community (their listeners) and their contribution to pop culture. Many entries should be deleted from Wikipedia if this entry should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razzledazzleradio (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Razzledazzleradio (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep: How dare you slander the name of Lostcasts - they are super fans and they educate the listeners on the mythology of Lost, which I haven't seen on any other podcast official or unofficial - they are the top of their game and deleting this article really shows the kind of mentality that some users cannot grasp the intellectuality that Lost requires! --User:cherry.j 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 86.135.108.245 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep We're big fans of Wikipedia. Anyone who's listened to our podcasts knows that we often use it as a resource, from The Philadelphia Experiment to Aldous Huxley. I have always had great faith in the concept of Wikipedia, and have defended it on many occasions.
That's why we were honored when, on August 14th, a commenter on our site (Loren), posted that she'd created a Wikipedia entry for us. You can see that comment here. Just a few days ago, a comment on our site let us know that the entry was up for deletion. The reason was that several Wikipedia editors said our podcast was "non-notable."
Yeah, that upset us. We know that we're one of the top LOST fan podcasts out there, but I don't expect everyone to be familiar with us. In defense of the Wikipedia editors, if they had not heard of us, they would have no basis by which to judge our "notability."
I started some bad blood by calling the Wikipedia editors "clueless", which was irresponsible. In fact, Wikipedia editors spend their free time doing something they're passionate about, with no compensation. This is something we can identify with, because that's what we do. But we have to make an argument for our notability. Here's a shot at it:
  • LOSTCasts has appeared regularly in the iTunes top 100 podcasts. We were consistently in the list when season 2 was on the US, beginning in November 2005. Of course, during the off-season, this has been intermittent. One additional item of note is that the iTunes top 100 is not based on total number of subscribers, but on the number of new subscribers within a given amount of time. We'll breach this top 100 again when season 3 starts.
  • Most podcasters don't publish subscriber statistics, but we do have a glimpse from an AP article published in May of 2006. LOSTCasts is also cited in this article. In terms of numbers, The Jay and Jack podcast subscribers are cited in this AP article at 13,000 subscribers. In the month of May, our subscribers started the month at 18,000 and grew to 22,000. This would make us the most popular LOST fan podcast being published at that time. Of course, this is the only window since that we've had into other LOST podcast subscriber numbers. But everyone would agree that once the Transmission left, it was really just us, and Jay and Jack.
  • ABC and LOST listen to us. As noted in the articles of deletion, Jorge Garcia, who plays "Hurley", is a regular listener and has called into the show numerous times. As well, we have been personally contacted by a number of other official LOST folks.
As I said, we're honored to have had a Wikipedia article written for us, and we'd love to see it stay. But it's up to the Wikipedia community to accept or reject claims of notability.
If you are going to comment on the articles for deletion, make it a logical argument for notability, not a flame. If you don't believe we're Wikipedia material, then say so! That's your right... and it's what makes Wikipedia great.
The outcome won't affect the future of LOSTCasts. We validate our notability through the voice of our listeners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment re: podcast notability: It appears that podcasts have a disadvantage under WP:WEB, as a fairly new medium that is relatively rarely featured as content articles in the traditional press, thereby decreasing chances for notability. 1) WP:WEB notes that Category:Awards may suggest notability, but there are no podcast-specific award categories, (and if any are added, they should be added to WP:WEB IMHO). 2) Traffic ranking sites such as Alexa (used in older versions of WP:WEB) also do not accurately reflect podcast traffic, which may be directly downloaded by music applications rather than web browsers. In general, I am left wondering if discussion for a WP:PODCAST article would be of merit (but I'm too lazy to embark on that endeavor), but consider that if one were to exist, it seems that an iTunes Top 100 ranking would be a reasonable criterion for podcast notability, a criterion that does not exist for other media in the umbrella category of WP:WEB. Yes this vote has attracted an array of single-purpose accounts and puppets voting "strong keep", but look beyond that and consider what podcast-specific criteria you would choose for notability. (My previous comment moved here with minor copy edit) --Santaduck 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For everyone out there who is unfamiliar with this pdocast, Lostcasts is one of the best podcasts out there for the hit drama "Lost". They have been called the "Thinking Man's Lost podcast" and I strongly agree with that description. Starting way back in September of 2005, they were already delving into possible mythological connections with the constellation Apollo and eastern religious connections to the usage of Dharma and the phrase "Namaste". If anything, this Lost podcast deserves a page, and due to the visibility caused by this deletion attempt, I believe many of us can add much more content to the page now. If you guys are reading this, I just want to say "It's a wonderful podcast and keep up the great work! Thanks!" --Nukem945 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Nukem945 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT. Meatpuppetfest. Morton devonshire 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This podcast should definatly have it's own page. I listen to many different Lost podcasts and LOSTcasts is a very strong contendor. It always has a very high level of discussion, think of it as a 500 level Masters class opposed to an 100 level Undergrad class. I think that if this podcast gets any negativity associated with it, the reason is that it may be above their heads and people are lashing out. It should stay. - 222.7.5.133 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Katmarie24 — 222.7.5.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep This is one of the most indepth podcasts around, they provide some of the best content and have great insite and comments. It should stay. - [[User:lostinlindenhurst] 07:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)lostinlindenhurst— 207.250.117.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - possible merge: This is a great podcast which goes beyond just fanboy drooling. For heavens sakes, they are doing book reviews of books seen in the show and discussing how the creators drew inspiration from them. They've had cast memebers sorta on the show. This is not just another "Gee...I hope Jack and Kate hookup" cast. However, I think a large page of Lost related podcasts may be in order and a better location for these.Sabalon 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although that may be true, it does not make this podcast notable according to Wikipedia policies. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that tagging every annons message (even though there not accounts so i fail to see why your tagging them with SPA) doesnt make there opinions any less valid. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually meatpuppetry is "highly inappropriate or unacceptable" according to official policy (Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets)). --Peephole 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen. This incident of inciting non-participants to supposedly "vote" here is antithetical to Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. Moreover, as the above referenced policy states, "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community." Let's not leap to their defense in some misplaced spirit of egalitarianism. Their actions here are disruptive and rude, plain and simple. -- PKtm 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't realize I'd stir up a hornet's nest like this in regards to this AfD. With that being said, new contributors are always welcome in Wikipedia, but not in the respect that it's to prove a point or to save an article simply because you've been asked to. Whethere an article exists about your podcast or not does not make it any less of a good program, it's just not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I love LostCasts, but if anything it should be contained within a bigger article about fan created casts.WeakLemonDrink 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can be dealt with in a line or two in the Lost article or better yet, just a link in the external links section. Gamaliel 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really a question. In Wiki articles about entertainment entities, in this case a podcast, are the editors judging the entertainment value of the podcast? Using another example, if I were to post an article about the 70s band The Goodrats, would editors remove it because they think it was an non-notable band because they never heard of it? If so, then so be it. But if not, I don't understand why you want to remove this article. It is a podcast. Some people enjoy it. Ten years from now, long after the Podcast is gone, somebody will turn to their friend and say - hey, what was that podcast we used to listen to with the great theories about lost, and that friend will turn to Wiki. Isnt that what Wiki is for?

  • Strong Keep This podcast is extremely well produced and serves as a great tool for those of us who are too busy to do the work of keeping up with the shows details ourselves. I believe it is a great aid to the Lost community and its Wiki article should be kept in good standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.214.100 (talk • contribs) — 72.145.214.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. While I'm a big fan of the lostcast I think a full article on it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. As other people have commented I think the most noteworthy lost podcasts should be mentioned in a section of the Lost article with a description and a link to them. And obviously Lostcast should be in there as the best theory lost podcast out there. MQ 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — MQ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Since ABC and an actor or two have acknowledged this podcast and/or appeared on it, I think it has become a part of the show's history. The creators themselves have noted that fan feedback contributes to the outcome of how the show is written. Mserenity 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mserenity (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The same is true about a number of other fan podcasts, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't make any of them notable. As for the podcast affecting the direction of the show, I would like to see a verifiable source for the information. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI live in Roylal leamington spa, warwickshire England and Im a huge fan, Their Notability has reached across the World, They fully deserve to be listed here : SpOOky, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.69.19 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 81.157.69.19 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP!!!! Why Whold You Delete This??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dataduplication

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP, blatant advertisement. Prod notice was removed without comment Gwernol 14:14, 25 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 CSD A7. kingboyk 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy (group)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, 1 self-released EP. I'm also on the verge of saying CSD A7. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:50, 25 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 best online

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable brand new website. Prod was removed by annon. editor. Was that editors only edit. Dipics 15:31, 25 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Inevitable Dossier

Non-notable web publication. Title gets four google hits. Deprodded. Weregerbil 15:41, 25 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 as failing WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gematria of Nothing

Does not explain relevance, history or importance. <1000 Google hits, Wikipedia mirrors at the top. Failed PROD on 14 March (author removed PROD) and was not listed for AFD. Delete unless strong arguments for its encyclopidicity can be advanced. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 25 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 one spate of coverage on murder does not two noteworthy news items make.. Shell babelfish 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Alaneme

Looks like an nn-bio to me, but I was not sure enough to put it up for speedy deltion. Only around 650 Google hits. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per coverage from major news sources (2 links added to article). WP:BIO states that articles on "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" generally should be kept. NawlinWiki 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure I know enough about the WP:BIO policy to vote, but this was a highly newsworthy case in the UK, and the issue of race-related murder has been heavily covered in the news here ever since the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I can't find an article about racially motivated crime in the UK which it could be merged into. Espresso Addict 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly, I don't quite see how murder victims fall into becoming notable people unless ther are notable prior to their murder. By definition, a person's murder can only happen once, so any press that is generated by the murder would only count as one event and on coverage per WP:BIO. The event may be notable, but the person may not, and we should be clear about it. I suppuse someone could create a list of "victims of suspected racially motivated attacks", but that would be too subjective and could include every person who is murdered in a location where they were not of the same ethnic origin as the local community there. Ohconfucius 05:05, 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. Shell babelfish 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Paint Factory

Doesn't seem to be real. Google turns up nothing, the history notes that the author has newspaper clippings but doesn't know how to cite them here. He was told how to cite them on his talk page, but still nothing--Nonpareility 15:52, 25 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Drop a Deuce in your Can, Brah?" (radio prank)

De-proded. I strongly question the notability of this prank. This article lacks any verifiable coverage by reliable sources to support the claim of "popular and well-known radio prank." -- Scientizzle 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and unsourced.Michael Dorosh 16:38, 25 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Bullets

Non-notable. See too John Ling. Seems like the author is promoting himself. Moreover, some "fan" of the person is deleting every comment questioning about the validity of the entry sneakily. Therefore, delete. __earth (Talk) 16:18, 25 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 09:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ling

Non-notable. Vanity. The author himself started the page. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourteen Bullets. Furthermore, there seems to be "fan" of his that keep deleting comments that question the validity of this article. Therefore, Delete __earth (Talk) 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - seems insufficiently notable, but I could be persuaded to change my mind. Maybe I just can't believe that someone I've nearly met (John is a friend of a friend; we were once invited to the same dinner) could really be notable for inclusion on WP. Whatever the case, keep or delete, we need to thwack those anons who keep messing up the talk page. I honestly can't be bothered to keep it straight; they remove and insert comments like crazy, even if those comments don't belong to them like *cough* mine. Johnleemk | Talk 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, John Ling might seem insufficiently notable, but I put this question to you. Is there anyone else, doing what he's doing, as prominently? Tanyiliang

  • delete per nomination. His first book has an A-rank in the 2.9millionth, his second is not ranked, and his third is ranked in the 1.8millionth. No sign of any independently published reviews which would allow him to pass WP:BIO Ohconfucius 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ohconfucius. John Ling himself made 83 edits, and the creator of the article, Tanyiliang is the author's friend.WP:VANITY -anon
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing notability and WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Marois Country Club

This is a private club open for only 2 months of the year. No significant media coverage here and fails WP:CORP. Possibly of interest locally so I have merged the encyclopaedic content into Sainte-Anne-des-Lacs, Quebec where it fits nicely. I set up a redirect which has been undone by the creator. This is a nice looking article but it is completely unsourced with much POV. The parts of the article that I haven't merged are unencyclopaedic detail about activities and internal organisation, effectively a recruitment brochure. After any redirect a delete is needed to stop the redirect being undone again. Delete. BlueValour 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written with the objective of recruiting new members or serving as an advertisement. Lac Marois Country Club does not actively seek new membership as residents of that city know of the existence of LMCC, and residents of other cities cannot be members.
First, i agree that there are some elements that do not have a neutral POV. As a goal of making this article conform to Wikipedia standards, I have begun removing all non-encyclopedic entries, like names of the current staff members and all comments that do not directly describe the Lac Marois Country Club or its activities.
As there are articles written on every subject in Wikipedia by those who are passionate about them, this article is intended to present readers about LMCC's activities and events. For those who search about Country clubs, Lac Marois is certainly a good find, as it does not conform to the pragmatic view of what is a Country Club. Furthermore, the activities presented are valuable to anyone in need of inspiration for events and these events are described here since they form the foundation of what LMCC is.
Once we can all agree that this entry is encyclopedic in nature, then I can see no reason that it should not be included in Wikipedia. MzK 2:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I appreciate your attachment to an an article that you created however it is simply not encyclopaedic. To fit into Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable - WP:V refers and says Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources - and all the content about the club's activities is simply not verifiable. It is fine on your website which is a suitable place but not here. I rescued those parts that are likely to be verifiable and put them in the main article. BlueValour 08:26, 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 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep green, Green cleaning, Ecologic solutions

Prod removed after some changes made by the author, but I don't think the changes are sufficient to address two major issues: it's a Neologism coined by a particular non-notable company, and it's a thinly disguised ad for the company, which doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have reverted editing of the above comments by 24.39.132.131 (talk · contribs). Fan-1967 18:38, 25 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 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

123.ie

Non notable organisation vanity + Non-Notable, its a small private web company, very much a vanity page possibly for the purpose of increasing google pageRank

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. BaseballBaby 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Kalan

Article apparently created with a speedy tag (recreated?); author added info which appears to claim notability; moving here for comments. NawlinWiki 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - needs a substantial rewrite, but there are quite a few independent mentions on Google about the subject. Blowski 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I stuck on the original speedy tag because the article was not very serious and contained clearly incorrect information. Right now the reecreated article is borderline notable but is sufficently encyclopedic that I wouldn't consider it for a speedy. Whether it now meets WP:BIO is for editors more aware of the subjet matter to determine. We certainly have many worse articles that have not been deleted. --Spartaz 20:59, 25 August 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, Shell babelfish 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - borderline notable, has IMDb entry, needs major cleanup though — FireFox (talk) 11:27, 03 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (person)/Cult hero (included later in discussion --Dangherous 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

This can only be POV. This belongs more as an article called List of people who have achieved greatness. Could be rescued I'm sure.

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

The result was Speedy delete per author's request. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovethebluesman

Advertising for this guy's eBay store; no Alexa ranking; nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My ebay rating is 100%. I wouldn't link to it on WP though. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:36, 25 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 Userfy to User:Backburnercomics/WESKetch_Architecture. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WESKetch Architecture

Contested proposed deletion. No 3rd party reliable sources provided to assert the notability of the company. Google hits for ("WESKetch Architecture") = 302. Mainly directory listings. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what exactly is the problem? Is it because WESKetch has too many published references to it? Or not enough published references? The wording of the "notable" tag it received was very confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs) .
Reply: Your article doesn't cite any references that makes it apparent straight away to the reader why there should be an article on WESKetch Architecture. You could insert subtle lies into the article and we wouldn't be able to verify anything because we have no sources to refer back to. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is my first article submission, and this is all really confusing. I gathered the information on the company from their website. Also on their website are the listings of the magazines they have appeared in and awards they have received. Not only is the magazine listed, but actual scans of the article are also linked. I thought the article would be significant because they were the first LEED certified architect firm in New Jersey. And sustainable architecture seems to be a hot topic right now, including research for school projects. I wanted to save other people time on their research by including this company as a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs)
It's not enough to just have a link to the company's website in the article. If there is verifiable information about the company on its website that supports its notability, please include that in the article (without, of course, doing a straight cut-and-paste from the site, which would be a copyright violation). And please sign your posts using four tildes (these ---> ~). NawlinWiki 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry for the trouble. Go ahead and delete this entry. I'll collaborate with my friend to bring this article up to wikipedia standards and then repost it at a later date.Backburnercomics 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Backburnercomics[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Lords

Nonnotable MMORPG. Author deleted prod tag claiming 55 million Ghits, which is true for searching Lords of Lords (Google ignores "of"); if you put "Lords of Lords" in quotes, you get 287 unique Ghits. Website has Alexa ranking of 856,374. NawlinWiki 17:24, 25 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busaphobia

Author keeps removing speedy tags, so bringing it here. Supposedly means fear of Jerome Bettis, running back known as "the bus", who retired last year. WP:NEO, WP:NFT. -- Fan-1967 17:27, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There (internet service)

Unnotable service - ranks 42,831 on Alexa. If it was a better quality article, then keeping it would be OK, but this article does not really discuss the technology, the pros and cons of the business model, or give a decent history of the service. Hence, either rewrite, or better, merge some of the content into a general article on this type of product. Blowski 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean-up There is a well-known combination Net service/game. The article is rather horrible, and quite advertise-y, but there is certainly notability. Check out GameSpot's coverage for some news examples, or look at the Google search for "Therebucks", the online world's currency, which gets 10,800 G-hits and a respectable 272 unique hits. And here is an article on the service's launch from Wired, and another one from ZNet. -- Kicking222 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write - This may be worthy of inclusion, but as it stands it reads like an advert --Amists 18:13, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PicBin.net

RNot found on Google or Alexa. External links have been added to various relevant articles (which I have removed) so this is highly likely to be pure spam. Blowski 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it should still be deleted, regardless of business model. Please see WP:NOT for an explanation of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Rather like people who describe themselves as cool, if you need to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, then you probably don't qualify to have one. Blowski 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - just as a suggestion, a far better way of grabbing traffic would be to write a blog on your site with interesting content about photography. Places like Technorati will pick this up, and if users value your service, they will start using it. Also, search for terms like 'photography' on Google, and contact the owners of those websites to discuss putting links on their site.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Guest House, St. John US Virgin Islands

NN establishment. Fails WP:CORP and the building itself does not apear to be noteable either. Also unverified. Blood red sandman 17:38, 25 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 Deleted and redirected to Droit de seigneur.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Nocta

Title is a misspelling of Prima Nocte, and only contains information from the movie Braveheart Thirdgen 17:39, 25 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drift brigade

NN. It says it was started on 2006 by a group of people! Add to this Charles "Chachi" Diaz -- Szvest 17:44, 25 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dam Dirty Apes

Contested prod involving potential vanity article about a group of student film makers. Primary claims to fame are a DVD release that Google can only find mentioned on Wikipedia clones,[35] a brief appearance on a single university's campus channel, and an award from a minor website run by a recently graduated film student. Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show verifiability and establish notability. --Allen3 talk 17:43, 25 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 per discussion as meeting notability guidelines. Shell babelfish 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kofax

This is spam. Language is written to present products as superior, to incite people to buy, and includes a link to the homepage of this company. I recommend deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysseshadd (talk • contribs) User's only contribution

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_25&oldid=71847722"